I'm assuming Turbine 2.3 will contain issues relating to the whole backporting of fulcrum, the methodology for extending Turbine User, enhancements to Intake. These are the issues I thought 2.3 would contain.
What's the case raising the platform requirements for Turbine? > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Eade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 5:34 PM > To: turbine-user > Subject: Re: [POLL] Servlet API 2.3 > > > On 14/01/2003 10:19 AM, "Arthur I. Walker" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Of course people are still using Servlet 2.2. > Are they? Isn't this what the poll is attempting to identify? > > If you are stuck with Servlet 2.2 are you really going to > move ahead to > Turbine 2.3? > > > > -1 on the move. There are plenty of features currently in > Turbine that > > need to be cleaned still. > Assuming you mean issues relating to Servlet 2.2 vs 2.3, > aren't these things > that would be addressed in Turbine 2.3 as part of the move? > > > > Skip > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Quinton McCombs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 4:54 PM > >> To: Turbine User > >> Subject: [POLL] Servlet API 2.3 > >> > >> > >> Is anyone still using a container that does not support the > >> Servlet 2.3 > >> API? We are debating moving to the newer API for Turbine 2.3..... > > Cheers, > > Scott > -- > Scott Eade > Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd. > http://www.backstagetech.com.au > .Mac Chat/AIM: seade at mac dot com > > > -- > 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]>
