Ahh yes, the ol' architecture approval game. I have played this game so often that it's not even funny anymore. And it's always at big companies. Sigh.
The only options are 1) comply and get very little done or 2) slip into stealth mode, get things done and then appologise like crazy after they discover what you did. For most people I recommend the first option. I dabbled with the second option for a while, but then my employer declared that downloading unauthorised software could be grounds for dismissal. I'm strictly a first option kinda guy now. On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:07:22 -0500, Fogleson, Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not a matter of it impacting the UI, it's a matter of approval of > architecture. The client of course approves the entire architecture and > though ultimately they allowed Spring it was not "specified in the > architecture docs" as the framework we would use to manage the > instantiation. > > The real bottom line here as I said before is what the client will pay > for, and maybe, as in this case, how deep they are looking at the code > and such. > > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:18 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: Re: MVC Frameworks > > Why would the users have trouble accepting Spring if you werent using > the MVC part - how does that impact on the UI to an extent that a user > could notice? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
