Yes... It would be a dependency rather than the same package. Either way it's the same net result (tapestry-ioc on the classpath when all you wanted was a bean mapper). That's the bloatware I was speaking of. On 9 Oct 2014 22:19, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo" <thiag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:42:48 -0300, Lance Java <lance.j...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > For a BeanModel framework to come packaged with tapestry-ioc feels like >> bloatware to me. >> > > I suggested a BeanModel JAR with a dependency on Tapestry-IoC, not > including Tapestry-IoC, in case we cannot really make a standalone > BeanModel JAR. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer > http://machina.com.br > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
