|
From: Hani S. <ha...@fo...> - 2002-07-02 13:20:42
|
Ok, THIS is what I wanted to hear! +1 from me if it doesn't impose anything on either camp, and people still have the choice of living life as it currently stands. Hani (slowly tiptoeing into the webwok world) On 7/2/02 7:41 AM, "Joe Walnes" <jo...@tr...> wrote: > 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, ma...@sm... 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 > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-developers mailing list > Ope...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers |
