Could we have a ruling on this, please? As far as I can tell, it's still Thursday, in all parts of the world.
;) > -----Original Message----- > From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:14 PM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: RE: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored? > > > Well, I know I'm not a committer and all <hanging-head>, but > for what its > worth... > > > [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration > for each module. No future change is required IMHO. > > [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) configuration > for each module. I think we should revisit this > decision after 1.1F. > > [ x ] I DON'T think we should allow naked pictures of the > committers on the > main page....DOH!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!! > > [ ] I want tiles to have a (possibly) dependent (shared) > configuration > for each module in the 1.1F release. > - modules would chain lookup from the current > module to the > default module (or something else) > - could be turned on/off by a switch which > defaults to off > > [ ] I want tiles to have a different configuration (Elaborate). > > > > James "...and you thought I was serious for a sec huh?" Mitchell > Software Engineer/Struts Evangelist > http://www.open-tools.org > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eddie Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 3:49 PM > > To: Struts Developers List > > Subject: [VOTE] How should Tiles be refactored? > > > > > > There's been a lot of discussion on how 1.1 final should look, and I > > think it's good to have such discussions. We (commiters > and non), being > > tasked with implementing everything that "is" Struts 1.1, > need to have a > > clear picture of exactly what that means. Now, when it > gets right now > > to brass tacks, it's irrelevant to me which way we go on > this (right now > > - I think my position is well-known). Something has to be > done though. > > Progress needs to be made, and to make progress we must > have a clear > > understanding of how we should proceed. > > > > Tiles will not work as expected with modules and that needs > to be fixed. > > What form should it take? I'm tired of speculation. I'm happy to > > study Tiles and determine what needs to change, but I will > not take the > > decision of how to implement it upon myself. > > > > Please bear in mind that we have folks waiting on 1.1F very > anxiously > > and that any behavior can be rectified in a later release. > Also note > > that refactoring to support a dependent configuration would not undo > > (that I can see) any change which would be required to make the > > configurations entirely independent. That is a necessary step. The > > only question is if/when the next step of allowing sharing across > > modules should occur. > > > > Cast your vote. > > > > [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) > configuration > > for each module. No future change is required IMHO. > > [ ] I want Tiles to have an independent (non-shared) > configuration > > for each module. I think we should revisit this decision > after 1.1F. > > [ ] I want tiles to have a (possibly) dependent (shared) > > configuration for each module in the 1.1F release. > > - modules would chain lookup from the current > module to the > > default module (or something else) > > - could be turned on/off by a switch which > defaults to off > > [ ] I want tiles to have a different configuration > (Elaborate). > > > > -- > > Eddie Bush > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
