On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i only threatened to -1 after trying quite a few times to get rodney to
> discuss his commit.
I'm not interested in starting some sort of flame war on this minor point,
but for the record, I saw exactly two emails on this--one directly to my
apac
--- robert burrell donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Morgan
> Delagrange wrote:
>
> > So it seems like the point is not
> "ConstructorUtils in
> > beanutils: a bad idea", but rather "Reflection
> classes
> > in beanutils: a bad idea". It's inappropr
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:20 PM, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
So it seems like the point is not "ConstructorUtils in
beanutils: a bad idea", but rather "Reflection classes
in beanutils: a bad idea". It's inappropriate to -1
adding ConstructorUtils to beanutils on the basis of
scope, sinc
So it seems like the point is not "ConstructorUtils in
beanutils: a bad idea", but rather "Reflection classes
in beanutils: a bad idea". It's inappropriate to -1
adding ConstructorUtils to beanutils on the basis of
scope, since that is where such classes currently
belong. If you want to move ref
