+1
I'd rather download only what I need. I have 512Kpbs (max). Other
people here in Asia have slower connections because of the recent
earthquake--fiber optic cables were cut if you haven't heard the news
yet.
On 1/12/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/01/2007, at 1:14 AM, Kenne
[X] 0 - Don't care.
This is one case where I'd like to be able to alias a goal to a new
plugin, or dual-alias the goal prefix. I agree the webapp belongs in
a different plugin, and probably should have started it that way, but
I really prefer to use "site:run".
If it does get moved, and w
On 12/01/2007, at 1:14 AM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
I imagine most developers have at least a 2Mbit
downlink
You have quite an imagination :)
I recently upgraded back up to a 1.5Mbit connection from 512Kbit.
It's the highest I can get in my region, and usually is significantly
more expens
+1
On 11 Jan 2007, at 04:49, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site
you don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is
something unexpected and isn't something m
On 11/01/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, following that logic why don't we just stick all the plugins in
one in one plugin and not bother trying to separate concerns at all.
Then we'll only have one plugin and when people run "mvn clean" they
will just get everything they need?
On 11 Jan 07, at 9:20 AM 11 Jan 07, Mark Hobson wrote:
Besides, all good developers have jetty
in their local repo already ;)
Yes, following that logic why don't we just stick all the plugins in
one in one plugin and not bother trying to separate concerns at all.
Then we'll only have one
On 11 Jan 07, at 9:14 AM 11 Jan 07, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
-0
More plugins are bad IMHO.
I don't think so especially when it encourages a separation of
concerns. Publishing a site should not require a servlet container.
We could either remove that functionality
and just let people site
On 11/01/07, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In short: why bother? :)
I tend to agree with Kenney. Besides, all good developers have jetty
in their local repo already ;)
Mark
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT
-0
More plugins are bad IMHO. We could either remove that functionality
and just let people site:state jetty:run '-Dwar=${site.directory}'
or, in the future, make those deps scoped optional and specify
which ones are used for what mojo so that when you run that mojo
they won't be optional anymore
+1
Emmanuel
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site you
don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is something
unexpected and isn't something most would associa
On 1/11/07, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
> another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site you
> don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is something
> unexp
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site you
don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is something
unexpected and isn't something most would associate with just gene
+1
Milos
On 1/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site you
don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is
something unexpected and isn't some
Can we put the webapp stuff that's currently in the site plugin in
another plugin so that when you simply want to generate your site you
don't drag down Jetty and all its dependencies? It really is
something unexpected and isn't something most would associate with
just generating a site. Th
14 matches
Mail list logo
