On 5 Oct 2013, at 14:29, James Carman wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Benedikt Ritter
wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with all of your points. Yes, the sandbox is a
place to try new ideas out. Does this mean certain quality criterions
do not apply? I don't think so. This all has to be co
Fyi doc is here
http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-monitoring/configuration.html
Le 5 oct. 2013 14:30, "James Carman" a
écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Benedikt Ritter
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with all of your points. Yes, the sandbox is a
> place to try new ideas o
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I agree with all of your points. Yes, the sandbox is a place to
> try new ideas out. Does this mean certain quality criterions do not apply? I
> don't think so. This all has to be corrected before promotion, so why not
> ma
On 5 October 2013 10:51, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Activated cause it answer the question (if) "is activated"
But why not ".active" or ".isActive"?
There must be some other bit of code that sets the property initially.
It may just be a convention that the user has to set the property.
Whatev
Hi James,
Send from my mobile device
> Am 05.10.2013 um 00:33 schrieb James Carman :
>
> Also, since when did we start nit-picking code in the sandbox? Why
> not leave these folks alone and let them work out their ideas? The
> sandbox should be an area where folks can play around with stuff an
Activated cause it answer the question (if) "is activated"
Le 5 oct. 2013 00:46, "sebb" a écrit :
> On 4 October 2013 23:23, James Carman wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:11 PM, sebb wrote:
> >>
> >> Back to the case in point: why is the string ".activate" and not
> anything else?
> >>
> >
>
