Well, I know I'm not a committer and all <hanging-head>, but for what its
worth...
[ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration
for each module. No future change is required IMHO.
[ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration
for each module. I think we should revisit this decision after 1.1F.
[ x ] I DON'T think we should allow naked pictures of the committers on the
main page....DOH!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!
[ ] I want tiles to have a (possibly) dependent (shared) configuration
for each module in the 1.1F release.
- modules would chain lookup from the current module to the
default module (or something else)
- could be turned on/off by a switch which defaults to off
[ ] I want tiles to have a different configuration (Elaborate).
James "...and you thought I was serious for a sec huh?" Mitchell
Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist
http://www.open-tools.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:49 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored?
>
>
> There's been a lot of discussion on how 1.1 final should look, and I
> think it's good to have such discussions. We (commiters and non), being
> tasked with implementing everything that "is" Struts 1.1, need to have a
> clear picture of exactly what that means. Now, when it gets right now
> to brass tacks, it's irrelevant to me which way we go on this (right now
> - I think my position is well-known). Something has to be done though.
> Progress needs to be made, and to make progress we must have a clear
> understanding of how we should proceed.
>
> Tiles will not work as expected with modules and that needs to be fixed.
> What form should it take? I'm tired of speculation. I'm happy to
> study Tiles and determine what needs to change, but I will not take the
> decision of how to implement it upon myself.
>
> Please bear in mind that we have folks waiting on 1.1F very anxiously
> and that any behavior can be rectified in a later release. Also note
> that refactoring to support a dependent configuration would not undo
> (that I can see) any change which would be required to make the
> configurations entirely independent. That is a necessary step. The
> only question is if/when the next step of allowing sharing across
> modules should occur.
>
> Cast your vote.
>
> [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration
> for each module. No future change is required IMHO.
> [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration
> for each module. I think we should revisit this decision after 1.1F.
> [ ] I want tiles to have a (possibly) dependent (shared)
> configuration for each module in the 1.1F release.
> - modules would chain lookup from the current module to the
> default module (or something else)
> - could be turned on/off by a switch which defaults to off
> [ ] I want tiles to have a different configuration (Elaborate).
>
> --
> Eddie Bush
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
