Yes, that option is totally viable now that they can co-exist(assuming that multiple unknown handlers are supported). One drawback it has, is that for new users of the plugin, it would be confusing to have 2 sets of similar annotations. The other problem would be the documentation, we don't have many contributors working on the documentation, and I can see the documentation for both getting mixed up, resulting in ever more confusion. (if they were going to be on the same plugin) . I guess I would be fine with merging them (+0), but I would give my +1 to keeping them on different plugins.
musachy On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Jeromy Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Musachy Barroso wrote: >> >> WW-2667 is fixed on trunk. Has anybody taken a look at the multiple >> unknown handlers proposal? I have the code ready to go but I am still >> waiting for some confirmation :) >> > > Hi Musachy, I think the proposal is fine. The use of multiple unknown > handlers will be rare. > Have you given any consideration to the suggestion (I think by Paul) to > "merge" convention into codebehind on trunk? As Convention is now > more-or-less compatible with CodeBehind after your modifications, couldn't > convention be merged into trunk as CodeBehind. If it has the same name, > same package, annotation superset and functionality superset, then the > migration of existing apps is minimal and importantly all the training, > books and docs remain valid. Is that feasible now that you've updated both > plugins? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]