Good--that's where it will go then (barring an
onslaught of -1's between now and this weekend)
BTW, I believe my original rationale for placing in
the Area package was by looking at the imports in
LayoutHandler--it seemed to be very heavily dependent
on the particular implementation of the Area Tr
Sorry for not being clear. I also meant the layoutmanager package.
On 26.06.2003 00:37:25 Glen Mazza wrote:
> Should LayoutHandler go into the
> Layout (Jeremias) package or LayoutManager package
> (Keiron)? (Personally, I don't care--99% for me is
> getting them out of apps.)
Jeremias Maerki
Should LayoutHandler go into the
Layout (Jeremias) package or LayoutManager package
(Keiron)? (Personally, I don't care--99% for me is
getting them out of apps.)
Glen
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for moving them out, but as Keiron suggested I'd
> also prefer
> LayoutHandl
+1 for moving them out, but as Keiron suggested I'd also prefer
LayoutHandler in the layout package.
On 25.06.2003 00:55:57 Glen Mazza wrote:
> While Victor and Jeremias are discussing an input
> API--I'd like to take advantage now of the relative
> freeze in the codebase to move the StructureHand
> Team,
>
> While Victor and Jeremias are discussing an input
> API--I'd like to take advantage now of the relative
> freeze in the codebase to move the StructureHandler
> and LayoutHandler classes from the apps package to the
> fo and area packages respectively (similar to what
> we're doing with
Team,
While Victor and Jeremias are discussing an input
API--I'd like to take advantage now of the relative
freeze in the codebase to move the StructureHandler
and LayoutHandler classes from the apps package to the
fo and area packages respectively (similar to what
we're doing with MIF/RTFHandler)
