[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yes. I know. I am going to try a hack that does
> > sourcefiles="*.java"... or something.
>
> That is a good solution. You should be able to steal the * code from Ant
> to do this.
>
> > I mean this is why packages exist right. Let use them. Honestly if
> > another .java file poped up with no package we would -1 it in a second.
>
> I seriously doubt anyone will call their servlet Turbine, especially in a
> "public" sense.
>
> > Nope. Not anymore. We require a initialization parameter! :) This
> > means they *have* to alias it! At least in JServ and Turbine.
> > Honestly a Servlet Engine will never really be user friendly. If they
> > alias it they will probably come up with another name anyway. Something
> > like say... oh... "jetspeed" or "turbine" ?
>
> In JServ you do not need to do the alias by default. Maybe so in Tomcat, I
> don't know.
>
> > So any other reason. I am like -0.2 on this... not a full one yet :)
>
> I vote to keep it, unless you have motivation or a really good reason
> other than it breaks Alexandria. ;-)
>
> I'm trying to look long term at a reason why it might screw someone up and
> I can't see any good excuses. Even if it does, it is OS and they could
> move it to a package as needed.
OK. So what I am hearing is:
---
~ Turbine with no package is OK because it is easier on the user when
then are setting up the engine.
---
Right? I mean Turbine is a hard thing to setup. It isn't like MS
Office or anything. I think the -0.2 is enough to justify moving this.
Ease of use isn't that huge of a justification if you ask me. .....
Kevin
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
