Re: configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

[Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>]

robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> 
>>9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config 
>>requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases
> 
> 
> is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?
> 
> if they are then i agree that they should encourage specification
> compliance. would a general statement about specification compliance be
> better? 

Its not needed. The charter should be as simple as possible.

Stephen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]

[Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>]

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> 9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config 
>>> requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases
>>
>>
>>
>> is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?
>>
>> if they are then i agree that they should encourage specification
>> compliance. would a general statement about specification compliance be
>> better? 
> 
> 
> Its not needed. The charter should be as simple as possible.

+1 -- after thinking about it some more, I don't think it is wise to 
limit things or to reference J2EE or other specs in the charter.

Phil


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org