Care to elaborate on why you think so? On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 03:40:57 -0500 (EST), Joseph Ottinger said: >Depends on the use. I don't think there'd be a problem eventually >allowing Jelly's use, but depending on Jelly would be a Bad Thing. > >On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Kelvin Tan wrote: > >>Did a search in the archives and didn't find anything noteworthy >>re: WW + Jelly, so thought I'd bring it up. >> >>Has this been discussed before? Perhaps not just using it as >>"another view", but in a more integrated fashion, ala OGNL and the >>current EL? >>After all, Jelly has a large collection of existing taglibs, and >>support for JEXL... >> >>Regards, Kelvin >> >>-------- >>The book giving manifesto - http://how.to/sharethisbook >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + >>IBM + LinuxWorld http://www.vasoftware.com >>_______________________________________________ Opensymphony- >>webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Joseph B. Ottinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://enigmastation.com IT Consultant > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + >IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! >http://www.vasoftware.com >_______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork >mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
