[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> Excellent - That sounds much easier for us to keep in sync with.
>> Still, it would be good to have a maintainer to step forward and help
>> us with the transition It may be good for somebody on the development
>> te
I tried to respond to this earlier today, but
aparently my mail message got zapped into the
netherworld.
--- "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Mel Martinez wrote:
> > I am writing the jasper34 refactoring proposal. I
> am
> > late on getting it checked in be
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The "toolkit" idea is perfect for what we need,
> and preferably with as little coupling/dependencies
> as possible between components.
>
That's the goal!
> For a "cooperating" container only the Jsp parser
> and generator ( and the runtime ) are relevant, all
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mel Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 2:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [jetty-discuss] Re: Jasper JSP maintainer required f
Greg,
I am writing the jasper34 refactoring proposal. I am
late on getting it checked in because I have been
distracted by other issues (job hunting, for one). I
am nearly ready to submit it though. It is currently
in the form of a UML class model generated with
Together. I will submit it in
Costin,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> The end result will be a more portable jasper - that will be usable in
> multiple containers with minimal pain ( and with enough hooks to allow the
> container to provide specific features and optimizations ).
Excellent - That sounds much easier for us t
