Having done a *bit* of work in social-api, I have no objections.
I assume that this would not generate a dependency on gadgets from
social-api, but would generate a dependency on common (already there)
and a load of properties in social-api. I think it would be quite
confusing to have config for social-api inside the gadgets tree ?
Ian
On 25 Sep 2008, at 16:21, Louis Ryan wrote:
I don't have any major objections. The need is obvious, we can
quibble over
the details later.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Again, though, we could always re-invent per-container
configuration for
the
umpteenth time that this discussion has come up, but we'll just
come back
to
the same conclusion. We've proven time and time again that per
container
configuration is necessary because many implementations need to
support
more
than one container in their deployment.
Yep, I agree. I'd like to see somebody who works on the social-api
ack that this is the right thing to do before I check in a new
dependency.
