On 07/07/10 08:04, Dhanji R. Prasanna wrote:
> It was just an experiment--it's going to be removed entirely. We need to
> rethink it from the ground up.

OOI, what are the underlying reasons behind deciding that it needs a
rethink?

Max.


> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Max Bowsher <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     The code in the lifecycle directory of the source looks rather
>     interesting.
> 
>     On the other hand, there has been mention of removing it (but without a
>     rationale that I saw).
> 
>     Whatever the case, it would be nice to get the status of that code
>     clarified before 3.0.
> 
>     Max.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "google-guice-dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice-dev?hl=en.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to