> Do you mean breaking user-apps based on Jetspeed or the
> actual base Jetspeed itself? I thought the abstraction
> through the new security implementation prevented just this
> type of situation.
>
> Could we offer the option of an OJB-based impl. along side
> the Torque one? Maybe, get people used to the OJB stuff
> early-on by choice and not by force. We could also add an
> ant task to build a .war with OJB support and leave the
> default war option to Torque.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
+1 on an optional OJB object model.
That would give people a chance to compare OJB with Torque.
BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will
signify your consent to this.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
