>>>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:24:37 -0600, Michael Youngstrom <youngm_at_gmail.com> said:
>> Ryan and Stan, why do you not think jsf-extensions is a good place for
>> this?
MY> I'm not Ryan or Stan, however, I wonder if features that are not JSF
MY> implementation portable would be better placed in an RI sandbox of
MY> some sort instead of in jsf-extensions? I don't know if this feature
MY> could be done in an implementation independent manor or not but just a
MY> thought.
Yes, this is definately true. The jsf-extensions project should contain
only impl-portable code.
Ed
--
| ed.burns_at_sun.com | {home: 407 869 9587, office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640}
| homepage: | http://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/
| aim: edburns0sunw | iim: ed.burns_at_sun.com