>>I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard >>(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp >>dependency, >>which is soft (configuration only).
Exactly :) > Yeah, but that's imho very ugly. Uglier? It would be just a single class that's just not being used if there is no XSP. While like currently you force everyone to include the session-fw at compile time. > But to be honest, I'm tired of these > xsp and dependency discussions. Yes, me too :) > If someone things it should be > different, do it if you think that it helps our users. I think having that single class in the session-fw would probably be better ...at least from a user's POV. ...but we can also just create mock class as Antonio suggested. Easy, fast, works. Deal? cheers -- Torsten
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
