commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:49:02 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 14/10/2002 06:09:54 PM:

> 
> dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > Is there a rule somewhere about not having sandbox components as a 
> > dependency? Or is this a general call to move Jelly to commons?
> 
> It's really time Jelly goes to Commons proper, don't you think?
Yes, I do. But I'm more interested in whether there is a rule somewhere 
about sandbox components as dependencies, since that sparked Costin's 
comments.

> It's more active than Latka itself ATM, and used by more and more 
> Jakarta projects.

It's more active than most of commons.......

> +1
> 
> Let's see the plan :-)

Go for it :)

--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work:      http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message