From: "Morgan Delagrange" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Morgan Delagrange wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it's definitely a full-fledged application, > > like > > > Latka and Catcus. Ripe for promotion, should > > someone > > > volunteer to make it happen, call the vote, help > > with > > > the repackaging, rippling GUMP failures, etc. > > > > Rippling GUMP failures? It is not like anything > > which has a dependency > > on Jelly has seen any any gump builds for months or > > anything. > > Absolutely. That's part of what I'm trying to address > by breaking up the Jelly build into 1) the "core" > library and tags and 2) separate builds for each > additional tag. That way, when HttpClient snapshot > 20021214 has a different interface than 20021208, the > entire GUMP world doesn't suffer.
Agreed. I'll try get some time this week though it might have to wait until next wednesday when I've some spare cycles - but I'll try create an experimental build of some seperate libraries in the sandbox (say, JellySWT for starters). Then once thats working and the website & documentation is working, I'll mail the list and we can start moving Jelly over to commons proper with a small core with a few solid dependencies and then lots of optional libraries. Then folks that depend on Jelly should have a small, stable core on which to depend and the GUMP builds should just work (I hope). > And that's why I'm only mildly interested in moving > out of commons. Me too. James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
