On Sab, 16 de Abril de 2005, 9:05, Torsten Curdt dijo: >>>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?
Yep. As long as the XSP session-fw helper stay in the XSP block. IMHO, we are trying to remove dependecies to XSP block everywhere. Is that OK? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
