+ 0.9 should tiger really be a tiger? shale annotations ?
On 10/13/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/13/06, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's the abbreviated reactor summary on the framework build: > > [INFO] Shale Test Framework > [INFO] Shale Core Library > [INFO] Shale Application Controller Support > [INFO] Shale Clay Plugin > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager Integration > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager (Basic Implementation) > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager (SCXML Implementation) > [INFO] Shale Remoting Support > [INFO] Shale-Spring Integration > [INFO] Shale View Controller Support > [INFO] Shale Tiger Extensions > [INFO] Shale Tiles Integration > [INFO] Shale Validator Support > > We have frameworks, libraries, supports, integrations, extensions, > plugins. > * What in clay gives it a plugin status? > * What differentiates support from say, library? > * Integration means value-add based on an "outside" artifact, but why > is shale-dialog an integration (we have a "native" impl)? > > Quibbling, but before someone asks me, I must ask you. > > How about ditching the library, support and plugin qualifiers? How > does this look: > > [INFO] Shale Test Framework > [INFO] Shale Core > [INFO] Shale Application Controller > [INFO] Shale Clay > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager (Basic Implementation) > [INFO] Shale Dialog Manager (SCXML Implementation) > [INFO] Shale Remoting > [INFO] Shale Spring Integration > [INFO] Shale View Controller > [INFO] Shale Tiger Extensions > [INFO] Shale Tiles Integration > [INFO] Shale Validator Integration These names work for me. +1. Craig -Rahul >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
