On 4/25/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This sounds great, Martin. But if i may be forgiven a little
> semantic nitpicking, my understanding of previous discussions is that
> JWC would be a "grouping" rather than a "sub-project". So Tiles would
> be directly a Jakarta sub-project
On 4/25/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd be against another commons style sub-community. Unless you can show
> me
> a defined scope, "web components" means nothing, then expect my objection.
Understood. A formal scope does need to be written down and agreed upon.
However,
This sounds great, Martin. But if i may be forgiven a little
semantic nitpicking, my understanding of previous discussions is that
JWC would be a "grouping" rather than a "sub-project". So Tiles would
be directly a Jakarta sub-project, rather than a sub-sub-project (i.e.
becoming "Jakarta Tiles"
I'd be against another commons style sub-community. Unless you can show me
a defined scope, "web components" means nothing, then expect my objection.
-Andy
James Mitchell wrote:
I believe that this would be a great way to bootstrap this new community.
If this were a formal vote, then I, as bo
I believe that this would be a great way to bootstrap this new
community.
If this were a formal vote, then I, as both a Struts PMC and a
Jakarta PMC member, would throw a binding +1 your way.
--
James Mitchell
On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
There has been considerab
