Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-portals-pluto-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83684 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2005 13:36:43 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2005 13:36:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 21766 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2005 13:36:43 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-portals-pluto-dev-archive@portals.apache.org Received: (qmail 21564 invoked by uid 500); 1 Sep 2005 13:36:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pluto-dev-help@portals.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list pluto-dev@portals.apache.org Received: (qmail 21551 invoked by uid 99); 1 Sep 2005 13:36:41 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:36:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4317044E.5030204@apache.org> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:38:23 +0200 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pluto-dev@portals.apache.org Subject: Re: Questions about descriptors References: <43155763.1060409@apache.org> <43158D08.1020305@apache.org> <431591EB.3070503@apache.org> <43167706.5010208@apache.org> <4316AD01.3030802@apache.org> <4316E50E.8020009@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <4316E50E.8020009@apache.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N David H. DeWolf schrieb: > I have no problem with it. > > David > Ok I have now moved the code from 1.1 to 1.0.1 on my machine, but this breaks the deploy of 1.0.1... Now I have a compiling version that uses the FileXXXServiceImpl throughout the deployer and not the interfaces XXXService. Otherwise we have to rewrite the whole deployer :( What do you think, should I commit this (ugly) version? Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/