Re: configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-06-25 Thread Stephen Colebourne

robert burrell donkin wrote:

On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:

9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config 
requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases



is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?

if they are then i agree that they should encourage specification
compliance. would a general statement about specification compliance be
better? 


Its not needed. The charter should be as simple as possible.

Stephen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-06-25 Thread Phil Steitz

Stephen Colebourne wrote:

robert burrell donkin wrote:


On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:

9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config 
requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases




is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?

if they are then i agree that they should encourage specification
compliance. would a general statement about specification compliance be
better? 



Its not needed. The charter should be as simple as possible.


+1 -- after thinking about it some more, I don't think it is wise to 
limit things or to reference J2EE or other specs in the charter.


Phil


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

2005-06-23 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:

 9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config 
 requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases

is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?

if they are then i agree that they should encourage specification
compliance. would a general statement about specification compliance be
better? 

- robert


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]