on 11/15/2000 4:03 AM, "Thomas Boehme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, no, it's not harsh -- I would probably say/write the same if Turbine was
> my baby. I realize that things went wrong regarding Jetspeed's use of
> Turbine. On the other hand, you can't expect a bunch of reasonably new
> people to revise the whole usage in a few days. Many of the (wrong) usages
> have evolved and "matured" over time. Certainly, new wrong usages shouldn't
> be introduced, but as Raphael pointed out this is only temporary change to
> make life easy for now.
>
> I am not a committer but second the steps Raphael has undertaken.
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
And as far as I can tell, there must be something wrong with Turbine if it
is so hard for you to take that init() code and create a Turbine Service out
of it.
There are about 10 different services examples in Turbine now.
It would be 99% copy/paste for you.
It would make your code cleaner.
It would be implementing Turbine correctly.
It would show your commitment to making Jetspeed "correct".
I bet that in the time Rafal and you sent your emails, this code could have
been written and done with.
I also don't understand what this "transitional" period is because as far as
I can tell, you guys need to be working towards just fixing things, not
sitting in "transitional" periods.
thanks,
-jon
--
twice of not very much is still a lot more than not very much
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
