+1 for keeping it separate until proven otherwise .. Sanjiva.
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 08:29 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > i usually find it easy to merge two things than take them apart. If it > is working now and there is no pressing need...do we really need one > module? > > -- dims > > On 9/8/05, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Eran! > > > > Eran Chinthaka wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Today I saw that we have a new and separate module for data binding. But > > > If I remember correct, we were thinking of putting our data binding > > > stuff under the XML module. That was one of the reason behind renaming > > > the module om in to xml. > > > > > > Comments ?? > > > > I thought that the current idea was that we wanted to make the simple > > data binding stuff optional, which is why I started with a separate > > module (and figured it would eventually be a separate jar). I'd be fine > > putting it under the XML module, it's certainly easy enough to move. > > > > +1 for moving it to xml. > > > > --Glen > > > >
