on 12/6/2000 2:03 AM, "James Duncan Davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I'm +1 for a CJAN. In fact, Pier and I talked for a couple of hours one > day about how to make it work well. > > But until CJAN is implemented, we need a workaround solution (iow, a hack) > that we can use now, not later. At least it would be nice. Of course, I > don't mind having the bootstrapper go off and suck in the xml classes -- it > works quite well really. :) > > -- > James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] > !try; do() -1 on any more "temporary" hacks. -jon
