I've spoken to quiet a few people that are already using zero-config in
production. I understand that it was always experimental, but it was
also solid and now used. I'd have to agree with Don (even though my
vote is now non-binding) and vote +0 if the existing zero-config
features are supported.
/Ian
Don Brown wrote:
Has any work been done to support existing zero config applications
with this new plugin? If not, I'd kinda consider that a blocker (-1)
because a sufficiently flexible configuration system should be able to
support multiple conventions. Also, someone will have to sign up to
convert the REST plugin, which currently depends on the codebehind
plugin.
If backwards-compatibility and REST plugin migration are resolved, I'd vote +0
Don
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With the addition of @IntereceptorRefs to the Convention plugin, it is
now possible to do most of the action mapping using annotations. Also
having 2 plugins to do the same thing is really confusing for users,
so we should deprecate Zero Config (good thing is that it was always
"experimental").
If you have had a chance to look at the Convention plugin, please vote:
[+1] Move the Convention plugin to trunk and deprecate Zero Configuration
plugin
[-1] Leave it in sandbox. (reasons?)
regards
musachy
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
