Why don't we get codebehind and rest together and make a
codebehind-rest-legacy.jar project. And make REST just depend on
convention, wouldn't that keep backward compatibility while allowing
us to move forward with REST+Convention?
musachy
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:21 AM, dusty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So lets do it and consolidate all of the configuration automation into
> Convention. We can get the new Convention and REST in 2.1.3-SNAPSHOT and
> then update the Codebehind page that its being absorbed into Convention.
>
> I say
maven-shade-plugin works fine. It took me while to get it to work due
to my maven noobness. If none object I will check in the xbean code
into xwork, with the pom modifications .
musachy
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Ada
On May 30, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Adam Hardy wrote:
Don Brown on 29/05/08 08:08, wrote:
xbean-finder is already split into a common library, just it is part
of the xbean project rather than commons. From a technical level,
there is no difference.
The reason we want to copy the code over has less t
Consensus Approval
'Consensus approval' refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at
least three binding +1 votes and no vetos.
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
Sounds like we have a consensus. Ship it!
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:53:54 -0700> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
hehe I meant consensus :)
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a plan but we don't have the votes yet :)
>
>
> I think this is where I chime in (again) and claim tha
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Musachy Barroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds like a plan but we don't have the votes yet :)
I think this is where I chime in (again) and claim that consensus is
preferable to a vote in any case. ;-)
--
Martin Cooper
>
> musachy
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008
Sounds like a plan but we don't have the votes yet :)
musachy
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:21 PM, dusty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So lets do it and consolidate all of the configuration automation into
> Convention. We can get the new Convention and REST in 2.1.3-SNAPSHOT and
> then update the
Secondly, I was wondering about the advantages of having fewer
dependencies, especially in this maven era. If something's really
great, it's fine to depend on it, surely?
And there is still a large number of folks using Ant, Ivy and Savant.
-bp
-
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Adam Hardy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "jarjar'ing" the dependency? What does that mean? I hope I'm not the only
> one who isn't hip to the lingo! I guess if I knew the context better I could
> work it out.
jarjar is a tool that repackages a dependency in a jar by
Don Brown on 29/05/08 08:08, wrote:
xbean-finder is already split into a common library, just it is part
of the xbean project rather than commons. From a technical level,
there is no difference.
The reason we want to copy the code over has less to do with the
project's stability but the desire
11 matches
Mail list logo
