Martin Marinschek wrote:
> In fact,
>
> I'd not deny a component coming in even if it is a little duplicate to
> what shale has to offer. Shale is not supposed to be a full-blown
> component library, that's what we are here for I'd say.
>
> regards,
>
>
The way I see it is, that shale tries to be a backend framework, it is
very clear that sometimes you have overlapping areas, validation for
instance is one of those issues, scoping (shale dialog, and saveState)
is another one, there always will be redundant areas.
