On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:48 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> The Web Components thread is much older than the recent set of threads, it
> was back in 2005. So I don't think we've heard your reasons against a JWC
> Sub-Project as opposed to the not-community-of-community threads.
i have worries abou
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 14:55 -0500, Greg Reddin wrote:
> Sorry to be a latecomer to this thread. I've had some trouble
> subscribing for whatever reason. But I just wanted to add that I am
> working on Standalone Tiles over at the Struts project and am willing
> to support it if it's moved t
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:54 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 4/25/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This sounds great, Martin. But if i may be forgiven a little
> > semantic nitpicking, my understanding of previous discussions is that
> > JWC would be a "grouping" rather than a
Sorry to be a latecomer to this thread. I've had some trouble
subscribing for whatever reason. But I just wanted to add that I am
working on Standalone Tiles over at the Struts project and am willing
to support it if it's moved to some Jakarta subproject.I'll let
you guys hash out how
The Web Components thread is much older than the recent set of threads, it
was back in 2005. So I don't think we've heard your reasons against a JWC
Sub-Project as opposed to the not-community-of-community threads.
I can find this on wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/CreatingCommonsForWeb
No. There isn't a consensus. Just you guys REALLY REALLY want it to
happen.
Do not mistake one for the other. I did pay attention. Yet feel the
issue has not been
sufficiently addressed thus I'm -1 for all the previously stated reasons
in all of the vaguely
alluded to threads for all the rea
On 4/25/06, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This sounds great, Martin. But if i may be forgiven a little
> semantic nitpicking, my understanding of previous discussions is that
> JWC would be a "grouping" rather than a "sub-project". So Tiles would
> be directly a Jakarta sub-project
On 4/25/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd be against another commons style sub-community. Unless you can show
> me
> a defined scope, "web components" means nothing, then expect my objection.
Understood. A formal scope does need to be written down and agreed upon.
However,
This sounds great, Martin. But if i may be forgiven a little
semantic nitpicking, my understanding of previous discussions is that
JWC would be a "grouping" rather than a "sub-project". So Tiles would
be directly a Jakarta sub-project, rather than a sub-sub-project (i.e.
becoming "Jakarta Tiles"
I'd be against another commons style sub-community. Unless you can show me
a defined scope, "web components" means nothing, then expect my objection.
-Andy
James Mitchell wrote:
I believe that this would be a great way to bootstrap this new community.
If this were a formal vote, then I, as bo
I believe that this would be a great way to bootstrap this new
community.
If this were a formal vote, then I, as both a Struts PMC and a
Jakarta PMC member, would throw a binding +1 your way.
--
James Mitchell
On Apr 24, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
There has been considerab
There has been considerable discussion, on this list and others, about the
creation of a Jakarta Web Components sub-project (also previously known as
Jakarta Silk). I believe the concensus has been in favour of creating it.
However, we seemed to get bogged down, several times, in discussions of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
