On 1/11/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/11/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure where this ended up. > > > > Whether Resources is part of the jar in "extras" or not, I don't > > think we should have a dependency on any called "extras". > > "extra" (to me) means "optional". Am I wrong on this? > > Who is the "we" that has a dependency?
I think the point is that we can't move Resources to Extras if the core is going to depend on it. -- Martin Cooper AFAIK, the only subproject that > depends on Extras is Apps, because the applications use some of the > optional classes. > > If for some reason you don't like "Extras", we could just call it > "Optional", like Ant does. > > The problem is that we have a class called "PlugIn", and there are > things besides PlugIn classes that are optional, like the ever growing > number of dispatch actions :) > > Another likely suspect could be that nutty ValidatorActionForm class > that confues everyone at first. If it were in Extras, it would be > clear which we consider to be the default. > > I think calling the package PlugIns woudl be confusing unless it only > contained PlugIns. And if that package only contained PlugIns, then we > would need another package for the other optional classes. 'm not sure > if I see the value-add in having an eight dwarf :) > > -Ted. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
