On 10/2/01 11:13 AM, "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> There would not be a requirement for the complete service framework, >> only for a single service (though the framework sure does make things >> easier). > > > +1 > > Jason, if Turbine can't have (non-interface) dependencies on Fulcrum, then > what is the point of Fulcrum? I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying that trends in past have proven to be that the non-interface dependencies creep into the interfaces because the implementation is done without really thinking about the interface. Generally in the past an interface has been created with a single implementation already completed. It's just a word of caution. > Projects are supposed to use Fulcrum. In the future projects may use Fulcrum. But that may not be the case, even though even in 3.x this is the case. > -jon > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl http://tambora.zenplex.org http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria http://jakarta.apache.org/commons --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
