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]

Reply via email to