Ted Husted wrote:
>
> I would frame it this way:
>
> 1. We have a shared utility subproject that would host an assortment of
> components.
>
> 2. We have a subproject for each component.
>
> 3. Each subproject may host a utility library, which other subprojects
> can use.
>
> (1) or (2) are going to depend on whether anyone has an itch and takes
> the initiative. Otherwise, we default to (3). This might not actually
> be a bad thing, so long as we have some type of CJAN facility so people
> can find what they need.
>
I'm getting itchy. I think (3) puts us back into the same place. I
think (1) is the best, simply because of the challenge of coming up with
kool names for all the subprojects you would have in (2) :-D
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Velocity : it's not just a good idea. It should be the law.
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
