Re: [SPAM] Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Antonio Gallardo <ag...@agssa.net>]

On Sab, 16 de Abril de 2005, 9:05, Torsten Curdt dijo:
>>>I think Torsten meant to move classes into session-fw because of hard
>>>(compilation time) dependency, while *not* adding session-fw -> xsp
>>> dependency,
>>>which is soft (configuration only).
>
> Exactly :)
>
>> Yeah, but that's imho very ugly.
>
> Uglier? It would be just a single class
> that's just not being used if there is
> no XSP. While like currently you force
> everyone to include the session-fw at
> compile time.
>
>> But to be honest, I'm tired of these
>> xsp and dependency discussions.
>
> Yes, me too :)
>
>> If someone things it should be
>> different, do it if you think that it helps our users.
>
> I think having that single class
> in the session-fw would probably
> be better ...at least from a user's
> POV.
>
> ...but we can also just create mock
> class as Antonio suggested. Easy,
> fast, works.
>
> Deal?

Yep. As long as the XSP session-fw helper stay in the XSP block. IMHO, we
are trying to remove dependecies to XSP block everywhere.

Is that OK?

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo.

Re: xsp depending on session-fw?

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
>>...but we can also just create mock
>>class as Antonio suggested. Easy,
>>fast, works.
>>
>>Deal?
Deal :)

> 
> 
> Yep. As long as the XSP session-fw helper stay in the XSP block. IMHO, we
> are trying to remove dependecies to XSP block everywhere.
> 
Yepp.

> Is that OK?
> 
Sure :)

Carsten