Matthew Phillips

You will probably get more help with this in our XML forum. I will move it there for you.

Donna_Reschke,
We don't have many rules at Javaranch, but our naming policy is one of them. We would like you to continue posting, but would you please change your display name first?. Thanks.
You can change your display name here.

If you put the help contents to good use, Eclipse should be pretty easy to learn.

deadliestofall,
We don't have many rules at Javaranch, but our naming policy is one of them. We would like you to continue posting, but would you please change your display name first?. Thanks.
You can change your display name here.

If your project is open source, you will find several licenses at the Open Source Initiative website. As Layne mentioned, the GPL is pretty common.

Thank you both for your replies.

I have a servlet that uses an API that I know not to be thread safe. I'm pretty sure that my servlet has been written in such a way that it will be thread safe, but I want to be absolutely sure. I'm using HttpUnit to test the servlet. Does anyone have any recommendations for testing the thread safety of the servlet?

In my opinion it is probably too early to make that decision on a new project. My recommendation would be to write your code in such a way that when it comes time to make the persistence decision, you will be open to either. You may find that much of the code that you will need to write to achieve the project's persistence needs has already been written for you in one of the ORM tools.
[ February 25, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I am not sure I see the relationship between the two. No one goes to jail simply because their fingerprints are found at the scene of a crime. Fingerprints on the murder weapon may get you convicted. Fingerprints by themselves are proof of nothing because fingerprints can stay around for weeks. it is how the fingerprints are realted to the crime scene that will convict a person.

People have been covicted for less than fingerprints at the crime scene. Simply not having an alibi has worked against some people. It's not the norm, but it does happen. If it could result in one innocent person being punished, which it can and will, then I'm completely against it.

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
I think this is the best solution so far : "let's all be CEOs!", If you are the CEO, you can't be outsourced right?, that's the best way and this the future. If employees start taking a more entrepreneural approach to their lives, then this outsourcing thing won't be so bad. Think of this way, you are the CEO of your own affairs, if one company lays you off, find out what skills the market needs and retrain quickly. The future is here, people will not only change jobs several times, they will also change industry several times.This idea is not novel at all, in the victorian times, kings had mercenaries fight their wars for them. The so-called "free lances", that's where the word freelance comes from today.

The entrepeneural spirit can certainly solve employment problems for some people. Some people just aren't cut out for being in business for themsevles though.

The link seems to be working for me.
Under a consumption tax system (the Fair Tax is just one such proposal), taxes are collected at the retail level instead of the corporate level. Tax dollars are still going to the government.

"Atlas Shrugged" and Philip Pulman's works would make good movies. I'd like to add "Damnation Game" by Clive Barker as well.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

But what happens now? The police have a mysterious fingerprint that may be related to the crime so they spend fruitless man-hours chasing a dead end lead. If your fingerprint is found at the scene, you may have useful information that you don't even realize you have.

You are correct. That can indeed happen. How often have innocent people gone to prison only to have someone else admit to the crime later in our current system? It isn't many, but it does happen. It shouldn't. How much more often will it happen when an innocent person may be connected to a crime scene? I'd much rather see the occasional guilty person go unpunished than to see one innocent person received unjustified punishment.

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I don't see the right to bear arms as being a fundamental right as I don't see the nature of the country radically changing if people couldn't own guns.

A person's right to life is fundamental, as is a person's right to defend his or her life. A natural extension of that is the right to aquire and bear the tools to maintain that defense.