Ok Niall, you caught me... I was being a bit of a wise-ass. :) And you are right, the feeback was centered around it not being targeted at 1.3.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but... That kind of begs the question... if I were to implement what I did in 1.3, would there then be interest from the committers? I think there was a reasonable amount of interest expressed by the user community for what I did, and if its just a matter of porting it to 1.3, then there is an opening here for me. And assuming that was the case, would there then still be a problem adding it to 1.2? If there was going to be no compatibility issue between 1.2 and 1.3, would there still be resistance to adding it to 1.2 as well as 1.3? -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Wed, March 16, 2005 11:07 am, Niall Pemberton said: > Sorry frank I had only half an eye on that thread when it was happening. > Wasn't the comments you got back that it was targeted at Struts 1.2 rather > than the current 1.3 development version. I didn't think it was criticised > for flexibilty, just that any solution to this kind of issue needs to be > 1.3 > orientated? > > Niall > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:46 PM > > >> If we are saying that maximum flexibility in Struts is a good thing, may >> I >> suggest re-opening my submitted patch for setupItems? If flexibility is >> the goal (something I generally agree and have argued for in the past), >> isn't my work very much a move in that direction? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
