> After having read all comments on the changes I wanted to make, as well > as some not-so-nice comments by people on #java (boxed and Joe Ottinger > for example), I've decided that it's not a good idea for me to be > architecting XWork.
Afaik, the only thing me and epesh said was that we're afraid xwork in your hands would turn into a portlet beast instead of the simple MVC framework it started out as. I really believe you are overreacting. Dissent is necessary for a constructive environment, and I am a dissenter by nature :P Yes, I would prefer Pat as the xwork architect because he would design it to fit my needs, that doesn't mean I'm right. Personally I don't think security has a place in xwork core code, it seems like a separate xwork-security module to me. Can this be done? I think this goes for quite a bit of the stuff you want in xwork, and I'd love to see you give input to pat as to what interfaces xwork needs to expose to make this happen, but I don't want to have xwork security in code that doesn't need it. As you're one of the people who talk about performance the most, I believe you can relate to this. In summary, I think your input will help xwork, but I also think we need to hold you back a bit so as to not make xwork into your framework, but OUR framework :P Anders Hovmöller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://boxed.killingar.net ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
