definitely not SEAMWEB nor SEAMHTTP
There are great things we can do on the web and on http not involving servlets.
On 16 mars 2010, at 21:44, Dan Allen wrote:
When I spoke to Pete on the phone about this module, he felt that it should be labeled "servlet" and not "web". So SEAMSRVLT perhaps or SEAMHTTP.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Well would ya look at that.... awesome. Looks like I'm your co-lead. Neat :)
I think this should be a separate project... No reason to depend on Faces for Servlet functionality. It could go the other way around, though, in that the Faces module might depend on the Servlet module. I see no harm in that.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Nicklas Karlsson <email@example.com>
For example the Servlet stuff from http://seamframework.org/Documentation/Seam3Modules that we are apparently leading ;-)
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <firstname.lastname@example.org>
It depends. What WEB type things are you thinking of? I think that other modules will be created for non-Faces functionality. Wicket, GWT, etc.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Nicklas Karlsson <email@example.com>
Will there be a SEAMWEB or does everything related go under SEAMFACES?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Let's just stick with Ken's original SEAMINTL :)
That's what the +1 was for. I was just joking around ;)
Lincoln Baxter, IIIhttp://ocpsoft.comhttp://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597http://mojavelinux.com
seam-dev mailing list