Henri Yandell wrote:
Had a vague memory it might be - but always best to bid low as such
and force activity :) Sounds like one to look at including in
Unstandard. By merging the small taglibs together I think we can get
enough overlap to increase activity.
Great. Yeah, that sounds reasonable. So
On 5/16/07, Karl von Randow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> * Input. I don't think anyone is using this anymore.
>
On the Input tag library:
I've committed a whole bag of fixes and improvements recently and I
think it is still a useful library. I have had several email exchan
Henri Yandell wrote:
* Input. I don't think anyone is using this anymore.
On the Input tag library:
I've committed a whole bag of fixes and improvements recently and I
think it is still a useful library. I have had several email exchanges
regarding the changes so I think there are people ou
Based on the Taglibs future email a while back, it sounds like we
might have some number of people interested in working on things.
Here's a proposal for a general direction:
1) Taglibs contains three active items:
* Standard 1.1 (1.0 being considered an older, unsupported release).
* Unstandar
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> How are you finding trunk of the Log Taglib? Specifically the usage of
> commons-logging rather than log4j?
>
> I made that change years ago and it's never been released. I'm not
> sure if it would be better to use that, or to create two taglibs, one
> for log4j and one
Thanks Matthew,
Things move slow here in Taglibs, but I'll make sure I've looked at
this by the end of the week.
How are you finding trunk of the Log Taglib? Specifically the usage of
commons-logging rather than log4j?
I made that change years ago and it's never been released. I'm not
sure if i
