Just checking I am not doing something stupid here; If I did have editing access how would I edit it? I am not seeing a "edit" button on my screen or on the dropdown under Tools.
~~~ Thomas & Bertines online review show: http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) On 4 December 2013 22:56, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > If you already have wiki access, then you should be able to edit it. > If not, poke Michael Macfadden. > > On 4 December 2013 21:55, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ah...ok. > > If someone could give me editing ability's over that getting started > guide > > then. Doesn't sound like I could make it worse at this point ;) > > > > ~~~ > > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > > > > > > On 4 December 2013 22:40, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> The client console does not exist anymore. > >> It was removed the code base (at least) two years ago. > >> > >> Ali > >> > >> On 4 December 2013 21:38, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Ok, just checking the output of the build. > >> > > >> > I have a "dist" folder with: > >> > > >> > pst.jar > >> > wave-in-a-box-server-0.4-incubating.jar > >> > wave-in-a-box-export-import-0.4-incubating.jar > >> > > >> > The old guide ( > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WAVE/Building+Wave+in+a+Box# > >> ) > >> > makes reference to > >> > > >> > waveinabox-client-console-0.3.jar > >> > waveinabox-server-0.3.jar > >> > > >> > in a "wave-protocol" directory. Neither the directory or those files > >> exist. > >> > I assume "waveinabox-server-0.3.jar" is now called > >> > "wave-in-a-box-server-0.4-incubating.jar" > >> > But is "waveinabox-client-console-0.3.jar" now > >> > "wave-in-a-box-export-import-0.4-incubating.jar" ? > >> > > >> > > >> > ~~~ > >> > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > >> > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > >> > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > >> > > >> > > >> > On 4 December 2013 21:50, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Might be worth at some point looking into alternatives for > >> multi-language > >> >> support? > >> >> Should be possible without multiplying compile times. > >> >> I'll have to look into it once I am up and running. > >> >> > >> >> ~~~ > >> >> Thomas & Bertines online review show: > >> >> http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > >> >> Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 4 December 2013 21:33, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Permutation is not only per browser, it is also per language and I > >> think > >> >>> WIAB supports 4 languages. > >> >>> Anyway, it is very strange it took 4 hours, probably 2 GB is too > >> little, > >> >>> you ll need about 4 GB. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Thomas Wrobel <darkfl...@gmail.com > > > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > 32??? There isnt 32 different browser engines is there :? > >> >>> > My own GWT projects, (using 2.5.1) use 7 at most. (and even that > >> should > >> >>> go > >> >>> > down in newer versions as Opera phase's out Presto.) > >> >>> > > >> >>> > It wasn't GWT permutations taking the bulk of the time anyway, > mind > >> >>> you - > >> >>> > it seemed to mostly be the testing and (strangely) expanding JAR > >> files. > >> >>> > That was just my perception though. Certainly before it got to > >> >>> > "compile-gwt:" took at least 4 hours. > >> >>> > Would the log help here? > >> >>> > > >> >>> > My machine is a 4200 dual core Amd. Not much ram (2GB), was > running > >> >>> chrome > >> >>> > at the same time, but not doing anything intensive. I wouldn't be > >> >>> surprised > >> >>> > if my machine is to blame here, but I cant think why it would be > this > >> >>> > different. > >> >>> > --- > >> >>> > Anyway, dinner now, then back to poking at things. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > ~~~ > >> >>> > Thomas & Bertines online review show: > >> >>> > http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html > >> >>> > Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On 4 December 2013 20:59, Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > We have 32 GWT permutations the moment, we used to have only > 4... > >> Some > >> >>> > last > >> >>> > > changes caused this increase... We need to be more cautious > about > >> >>> > updating > >> >>> > > GWT client code. > >> >>> > > I tried > >> >>> > > ant clean dist-server compile-gwt test > >> >>> > > It took me about 16 minutes. If you tried the default target > which > >> >>> also > >> >>> > > includes running tests then it could take about 6 minutes more. > >> >>> > > So max 21 minutes on 2-core laptop. This is for the full prod > >> build, > >> >>> if > >> >>> > you > >> >>> > > run the server from compiled source with dev GWT setting(only 2 > >> >>> > > permutations) then it takes only a few minutes, or even less. > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > Basically running wave is simple like: > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > git clone git://git.apache.org/wave.git wave > >> >>> > > cd wave > >> >>> > > cp server.config.example server.config > >> >>> > > ant dist-server compile-gwt run-server > >> >>> > > Open the browser at http://localhost:9898 > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > "BUILD SUCCESSFUL > >> >>> > > > > Total time: 312 minutes 41 seconds" > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Err.. it takes ~5 minutes on my dev machine! Is this a single > >> core > >> >>> vm, > >> >>> > > > doing lots of swapping, and with shared io? > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > Suggestion; > >> >>> > > > > Would it be possible to have a virtual machine with > everything > >> >>> set up > >> >>> > > > > already? or is there technical/license reasons for that to > be > >> >>> > > unsuitable? > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > I suspect this would be difficult. (And you don't really want > to > >> be > >> >>> in > >> >>> > a > >> >>> > > > VM). > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > Query: > >> >>> > > > > Can Wave be updated to JDK7? is there big issues holding it > >> back > >> >>> ? Or > >> >>> > > is > >> >>> > > > > there more open alternatives we can use instead - one that > >> doesn't > >> >>> > > > require > >> >>> > > > > handing over personal details to a company? > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > (OpenJDK 1.6 works fine, so...) > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > This is quite difficult to do for the codebase. You would also > >> need > >> >>> to > >> >>> > > > upgrade all the third-party components. > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Please continue to provide feedback. > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > Thanks. > >> >>> > > > Ali > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
