i count 5 +1's and no objections so i'm going to go ahead and delete
it.
- robert
On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 19:44 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > 8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
> > JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
>
> doe
+1
On Jul 4, 2005, at 2:15 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
+1
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core
objects, a
JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be
+1
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop
it.
here's my +1
- robert
--8<---
+1
-Rahul
On 7/3/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> On 7/3/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 to drop this
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > >>8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
>
+1
--
Martin Cooper
On 7/3/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 to drop this
>
> Phil
>
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
> >>JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
> >
> >
> > doesn't se
+1 to drop this
Phil
robert burrell donkin wrote:
8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop
it.
here's my +1
- robert
--8<-
> 8. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a
> JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
doesn't seem very relevant. i think that it'd be simpler just to drop
it.
here's my +1
- robert
--8<-