oapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net]
On Behalf Of Eric Schultz
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 8:19 AM
To: Garrett Serack
Cc: coapp-developers
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] Ptk exception
O
ists.launchpad.net
>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
>
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
>
> Pos
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Philip Allison
> wrote:
> > There is a use case for creating a minimal, stand-alone version of a
> > particular package, bundling just what it needs into a deployable
> > image, but I can't remember what co
the newer
MSI for a package. We may need a way of tracking this GUID and keeping it
the same across releases.
If we generate it via your hash, it should be okay as long as version is not
included.
On the other hand, ProductCode and PackageCode must be unique on every new
MSI update. They c
le 'PACKAGE_ID'. Simply use 'PACKAGE_ID' for both. Their
relationship becomes obvious.
Also, there is no problem prefixing tables with 'CO' for CoApp since it
provides a semi-namespace. But, don't prefix all the columns the same way.
Simply name them for what the
n the work-world, the wise man just
> nods his head, and acknowledges that you can't fix the behavior of the
> masses.
>
> G
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Olaf van der Spek [mailto:olafvds...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:34 AM
> To: Trevor Dennis
oapp-developers
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
--
Trevor Dennis
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Just another thought.
We're already packaging Apache, PHP, PostgreSQL, etc in CoApp already.
What's stopping us from using these packages to build our repository
servers?
All we need is a CoApp created MSI called CoApp-Repository.msi that puts it
all together using our own CoApp packages then
> Nod, I just did a little test with a dummy DLL project with vs10 and
> the
> resulting .dll was 30K w/ no runtime dependencies (w/ static).
>
Did you use the C++ string library and perhaps a template linked list in
your dummy project? I think the linker strips out code that isn't used so
that
>
> On 5/20/2010 12:14 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Garrett
> Serack wrote:
> >> /facepalm
> >>
> >> I think we'll select technologies based on what makes sense
> technologically. If we're writing the server part in C# anyway, SQL
> Server is quick, fast and
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Trevor Dennis wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Olaf van der Spek
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Garrett Serack
>> wrote:
>> > Just build a sql server database. It's not that heavy!
>>
App engine core. I'm not
worried about C# since the Ngpsql library is out there.
--
Trevor Dennis
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coap
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 5/18/2010 11:10 PM, Nasser Dassi wrote:
> >
> > If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt
> > the most transparent license. Why? Because we are not usurping
> > licensing of the source code; we are simp
ns defined outside of a class can
be defined with a C binding. As soon as it's in a class it must use C++
bindings and all the name
mangling takes effect. Once that happens, connecting to the classes from
the other languages is
almost impossible.
I've seen people try to to create bindin
crosoft is supporting XP SP3. I'd say even SP2 right now
but they're dropping regular support for that this summer.
Trev.
From: coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net
[mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+trevor=dennis-it@lists.launchpad.net]
On Behalf Of
ists fall into this
category.
I think the package-version is just normal because that's what you always
get when you untar the package file.
For libraries, should we have a "Program Files\Shared" type of directory?
Similar to the /usr/share on UNIX? Or Libraries?
Trev.
>
>
> *Garrett* *Serack* | Open Source Software Developer | *Microsoft
> Corporation *
>
> *I don't make the software you use; I make the software you use better on
> Windows.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Trevor Dennis [mailto:tre...@dennis-it.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06,
the software you use; I make the software you use better on
> Windows.***
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list:
> https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers>
> Post to : co
18 matches
Mail list logo
