Hi!
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> You know, I'm not even going to bother with the point by point.
> In the end, I'm sure we're both right - it can probably be made to work
> either way.
That might be the case, yes.
> So where does this leave us? You contend that all of the features
> and goals can be achieved by altering the current EJX code. I contend
> that they have already been achieved in the new code. I would also point
> out that I am not up to the task of altering EJX in the manner you
> suggest. So, are you going to commit to making the required changes to
> EJX in the immediate future? I cannot make progress (on JAWS and TXs and
> the other things I'd like to put into place) with the EJX metadata
> structure, and I'd rather not just take a vacation and come back when
> everything has been fixed.
> So what's it going to be? Would you like to endorse the new code
> (and provide constructive input, which seems to already be happening if I
> read between the lines) or rewrite the old code? If the latter, when do
> you expect to be finished?
I don't have the energy or time to do this, so, do the way you think is
best. If you decide to use the current codebase I will happily answer
any question you have about it so that you don't waste any time/effort.
If you decide to go with your codebase, then that's ok too. If you need
any input or feedbacl please contact me directly, as I will not be
participating on this list that much for quite some time (got a book to
finish, and now is a good time it seems).
regards,
Rickard
--
Rickard �berg
@home: +46 13 177937
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.telkel.com
http://www.jboss.org
http://www.dreambean.com
