Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> on 5/1/02 11:58 PM, "Steven Noels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Which basically boils down to "let's just invent our own little language
>>and try to get enough people bragging about it"
>
>
> It isn't a little language... It is Velocity templates using a well
>
Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>on 5/1/02 11:58 PM, "Steven Noels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Which basically boils down to "let's just invent our own little language
>>and try to get enough people bragging about it"
>>
>
>It isn't a little language... It is Velocity templates using a well
>known/u
Jon wrote:
> > Wasn't this entire thing
> > about community building? So what do we really want: using
> technology we
> > invented on our own, alienating possible new users, or sticking to
> > common standards?
>
> Using technology that is well supported, developed by a
> community of people
> w
on 5/1/02 11:58 PM, "Steven Noels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which basically boils down to "let's just invent our own little language
> and try to get enough people bragging about it"
It isn't a little language... It is Velocity templates using a well
known/used API (DOM4J).
> Come on, this
Jon wrote:
> I can agree with that. Hell, the dvsl vs. xsl is a showstopper for me.
>
> I can't stand XSL...
>
> > I'm also a little worried about the size/vocality of the centipede
> > developer community. Krysalis lists (in the archive) total
> 53 posts. Maven
> > dev (includes cvs) has 780, an
on 5/2/02 2:54 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Centaven Reasoning: I don't see how we can easily do this. The approaches
> are wildly different at basic levels, e.g. dvsl vs xsl, entities vs
> external build files for ant, extending GUMPs descriptor vs generating one
> etc. A
