Re: Spring

> From: Erik Pragt <erik@...>
> Subject: Re: [grails-user] Spring
> To: user@...
> Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 8:43 AM
> Graeme Rocher-2 wrote:
> >
> > We have a good relationship with the guys at
> SpringSource and don't
> > have any immediate concerns no. I think there is a
> slight overreaction
> > to the policy in that thread
> >
>
> Sorry Graeme, but I think your taking things a bit to
> lightly here.
>
> This change in policy is a huge risk for any Spring related
> project, but
> also for any project which relies on Spring. I don't
> think that having 'a
> good relationship' will result in: Instead of charging
> $25.000 for it, we
> give it for free. If that was the case, people would just
> download Grails to
> get the latest Spring version from it.
>
> Since I think the future of Spring as a framework
> (especially with the new
> money focusses approach) is a bit uncertain, I also fear a
> little bit for
> Grails, since it so strongly depends on Spring. I'm not
> about to start a
> panic here, but I think I need to be a little be more
> convinced about the
> future of Grails + Spring before I'm at not concerned
> about the future of
> Grails anymore.
>
> So: any idea on how this relationship could help Grails?
>
> Erik
>
> PS: This is not theoretical at all: Grails Remoting needs
> Spring 2.5.5.
> Whith this policy in effect, Spring 2.5.5 would never have
> been released to
> the public, I wouldn't have been able to use Grails in
> combination with
> Grails Remoting, and I would have to find a different
> solution. Just some
> context for my worries.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Spring-tp19609427p19687736.html
> Sent from the grails - user mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email