You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> on 2007/01/11 19:21:20 UTC
2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of se 5
now...
Anyone know?
--jason
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>.
+1
--vamsi
On 1/12/07, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> -dain
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
> > FYI, we are currently including this in lib/* and 12 modules
> > reference it in their poms.
> >
> > I think we should remove these refs.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> >
> >> Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of
> >> se 5 now...
> >>
> >> Anyone know?
> >>
> >> --jason
>
>
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> FYI, we are currently including this in lib/* and 12 modules
> reference it in their poms.
>
> I think we should remove these refs.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of
>> se 5 now...
>>
>> Anyone know?
>>
>> --jason
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> FYI, we are currently including this in lib/* and 12 modules
> reference it in their poms.
>
> I think we should remove these refs.
Agreed.
--kevan
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
FYI, we are currently including this in lib/* and 12 modules
reference it in their poms.
I think we should remove these refs.
--jason
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of se
> 5 now...
>
> Anyone know?
>
> --jason
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
+1 to remove it.
On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of se
> 5 now...
>
> Anyone know?
>
> --jason
>
Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org
Re: 2.0 & geronimo-qname_1.1_spec
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Yes, we don't need it. AFAIK. It was being used in Axis1...
-- dims
On 1/11/07, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Do we need to include qname anymore? Looks like that is part of se 5
> now...
>
> Anyone know?
>
> --jason
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)