Peter Donald wrote: > > Hi, > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > I'm not against it - the only thing that bites me a little > bit is that > > (if I'm not mistaken) Fortress currently requires i18n, so > the changes > > you propose would require that Fortress depends on salt. In > general I > > have nothing against such dependencies but I would like to > have as few > > external dependencies for Fortress as possible. > > So perhaps we should consider removing the dependency to i18n from > > Fortress first? > > If I am not mistaken this would involve removing dependencies > across almost every codebase in Excalibur as Fortress > transitively touches a chunk of em. Certainly possible if > none of these components are ever used in non-English > locations but I think theres going to need to be others who > are willing to help zap the support to do that ;)
Hmm, I haven't looked at it, but I don't know where Fortress or any other excalibur package really uses i18n. If, however, it makes sense to have i18n in Fortress, than I would prefer if that wouldn't require an external dependency. But this is just a preference; if it makes more sense to use salt there than let's use it. Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Excalibur Project -- URL: http://excalibur.apache.org/
