We all agree on updating the REST plugin, but we can't do that until Convention lands on trunk. If we are divided on the topic of Convention supporting Codebehind vs keeping them as stand alone plugins, should we then vote on that?
musachy On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Brian Pontarelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > Here are the goals of this plugin. Any movement to integrate plugins and > make all things compatible (which I gracefully disagree with) MUST satisfy > these goals: > > - Simple API that is fixed and will not change anytime soon > - Usable with absolutely no configuration or annotations > - Minimize the ways to solve a single problem > - Support actions and results inside classpath > - Provide excellent SEO > > -bp > > > Musachy Barroso 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 >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "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]
