txs folks, I already dropped them.
Converter frameworks per se is a good idea. But DS is just not the right place it seems. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lincoln Baxter, III" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 9:22 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Converter framework > > +1 drop it > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Jason Porter > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> +1 For dropping it. >> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:29 AM, Ken Finnigan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Ken >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On Jun 14, 2012, at 0:44, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > >> > > a.) What is this for? -> no one knows >> > > b.) Do we need it in DeltaSpike? -> not yet. >> > > c.) Do we need it for JSF? -> No, JSF has it's own > Converter logic >> > > d.) Do we need it somewhere else? -> No, not afaik >> > > >> > > So let's drop the Converter stuff which is currently of no > use and >> > really complicated to get right? >> > > Just remember that this was more or less a 1:1 copy of the Spring > logic >> > which has not so easily extendible producer methods. >> > > >> > > [+1] Drop it, our code will get complicated enough anyway >> > > >> > > [+0] Meh, don't care >> > > >> > > [-1] keep it because it is very important (+ give use case and >> reasons) >> > > >> > > LieGrue, >> > > strub >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jason Porter >> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com >> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp >> >> Software Engineer >> Open Source Advocate >> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling >> >> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 >> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu >> > > > > -- > Lincoln Baxter, III > http://ocpsoft.org > "Simpler is better." >
