+1, since it doesn't have to change anything > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Walnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Webwork-user] Re: [Webwork-devel] Intergrate with > OpenSymphony? > > > As someone from the OpenSymphony camp and a very big fan of > WebWork, you > get my +1. > > Though I would like to point out that if WW is under the same > umbrella as > the other OSym tools it does not mean you have to start using > them (or > vice-versa). > > Oh yeah, please don't impose the com.opensymphony package > namespace on > WebWork (or in fact any rules)! > > Cheers, > -Joe Walnes > > On Mon, 01 July 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > Ok. It's time to bring up a former heated subject. Back > > in March, there was a topic concerning moving WW under > > Opensymphony. The conclusion of the debate was just to > > hang out and wait. Since then, a lot has changed and I > > think it is time to bring this subject up again. I > > think WW could benefit from the exposure, common > > infrastructure, developers, etc. > > > > So, I'll start off and say +1. What do you say? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user >
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webwork-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user
