On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 21:33 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 10:05 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 16:14 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > i've been considering for a while whether the commons should ship a > > > simpler but reasonably compatible version of JCL. over the years, we've > > > recommended this so many times but have always left it to the actual > > > user to go away and do the work themselves. i've come to the conclusion > > > that it would be a good idea for this to be available as a separate > > > component. > > > > I'm ok with this idea. It certainly would be useful. > > > > However I think that JCL2.0 won't be too hard to create, and we would of > > course end up generating exactly this as part of JCL2.0. So I would > > probably prefer to just leave this work until then, rather than delay > > the 1.1 release. If someone (you?) really wants to work on this, then > > perhaps that could be done as a 1.1.1 release? > > i was thinking about a completely separate commons component with an > independent lifecycle.
Well, this component would become obsolete as soon as JCL2.0 was released. Also seems confusing for two commons components to offer classes with the same names. If it's to be a temporary thing only, then perhaps a sourceforge project would be a better home for this? Cheers, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
