I see. Interesting. I wanted to clarify if the Bad Thing was another dependency in general, or if there were specific issues with Jelly...
Thanks. On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 03:21:33 -0800 (PST), Erik Beeson said: >Why he thinks it would be bad to depend on Jelly? So far, there >hasn't been a good case as to how it could benefit xwork/webwork, >and even if it did add a little, we try to keep dependencies to a >minimum. A bunch of dependencies is too jakarta-ish, as someone put >it. > >--Erik > >On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Kelvin Tan wrote: > >>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. > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >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
