On 3/25/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/25/06, Gabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm sure I could come up with more reasons, but this is a good start to > this discussion. > > I don't think anyone would have a problem with this, Gabe. It's just a > matter of whether we need to bring XWork and WebWork through > simultaneously, or whether we can do them one and then the other. (If > that's what the XWork developers would like.)
And that parenthetical comment is the key to this. Nothing stops SAF 2.0(or Shale for that matter) from having a binary dependency on XWork, even if it is still maintained by the OpenSymphony folks. I would personally welcome including this code base ... but whether it comes here or stays there has to start with what the XWork developers want to do. Craig
