I agree. I'll call it now.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel like all the opinions are out on the table for this issue and it just > needs a vote. > > > On Jul 11, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: > >> Les Hazlewood wrote: >>> >>> At the end of the day though, I think the one thing that really makes >>> this shine is that by implementing it, we would have NO required >>> dependencies on a 3rd party API. That alone (to me) makes it worth >>> it. >> >> I don't see it as an important advantage. People using JSecurity - or any >> other Java lib - usually have dozens of jars to include in their project. >> It's absolutly not any more a burden, especially with the tools we have >> (ant, maven, buildr). >> >> I'd rather get a couple of jars within JSecurity if it spares the project >> peeps the time to work on things which aren't already implemented outside. >> >> Again, we tried to achieve such a goal on other Apache projects - no >> dependency -. The code get crippled, you have to maintain it, you overload >> the users CL, as they are likely to already use the very same libs, and when >> a bug is fixed in the libs, you have to port it back to your source. >> >> Just killing... >> >> >> -- >> -- >> cordialement, regards, >> Emmanuel Lécharny >> www.iktek.com >> directory.apache.org >> >> > >
