You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk> on 2005/06/23 23:33:47 UTC
configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home
for bricks reusable in java web applications]
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?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
Posted by 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
Re: configuration files [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home
for bricks reusable in java web applications]
Posted by 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