Thanks for the support of the extension, but I think that Ted's comment was from the question as to integrate the functionality into the existing tags or to have an extra package with their own classes that extend the original, and his opinion was that they should have their own (re: the debate over the extra options tag). Which I tend to agree Means that every add-on with a purpose can be as clean as it needs to be..
If he did mean that he didn't want it in CVS, then that's just not cricket. :) I'm currently honing them to be in their own classes in the struts package structure, remove the need for extra properties that only really apply to the base tagging system (ie. name), and move the example to it's own package. Should only be another day or so. Then it'll be up to the rest of you to lobby a committer to get it into source control. Tom, I'm happy if any person at all takes the extension and uses it. If it's not added to the struts offering itself, then I'll set it free in the user mailing list. I've already benefited from it. Everything else is a plus. No stress. Arron. Alexander Jesse wrote: >Hi, > >I also think the nested tag library should be included in the cvs >under the contrib-tree. Makes it easier to get a correct version >that works. Else the problem will always be to match the correct >versions. Putting it into the contrib tree does not render the >framework itself heavier. I'd rather vote to separate the samples >in a separate cvs-module. They have less to do with the actual framework. > >regards >Alexander > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
