Yah, engineers will understand this. In fact, the only people in the world that seem to have trouble with it are Struts committers. The fact that people can seriously debate the efficacy of standard versioning is amazing.
On 6/28/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's a good point Michael. My answer to it would be that it's just something we have to live with. Paul used the term "generation" to differentiate Struts 1.x from 2.x... to me though, "generation" has the same connotation as does "classic". I don't think there's any real contradiction though... you use the Win9x vs. WinNT comparison, and I think that's apt... they are both Windows in the end, just like both "generations", or whatever, would still be "Struts". Microsoft sometimes does back-port features... I don't think there's any difference between that and continuing to evolve 1.x and 2.x at the same time. The key I think is making it clear that 2.x really is something new, and I personally suspect largely incompatible in terms of migrating existing apps to it... if that winds up being true, then people are going to be very happy that 1.x continues to evolve, and I doubt it will be confusing if it's explained well. Frank Michael Jouravlev wrote: > In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, > Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider > the announcements like this: > > "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 > as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include > ... " > > and then: > > "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts > framework. New features include ... " > > Things have not got simpler after divorce :) > > I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But > I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about > releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. > > So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at > them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but > former 9x users too :-)) > > On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts >> 2.1, >> etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a >> single project, >> getting away from this concept of separately versioned >> "subprojects". There >> will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, >> and perhaps >> some day, Struts 3.x releases. >> >> Don >> >> Michael Jouravlev wrote: >> > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts >> > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version >> > 4.0 >> > >> > :-) >> > >> > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) >> > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and >> > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? >> > (Obviously I prefer the latter) >> > How version numbers correspond to project names? >> > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I >> think yes) >> > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? >> > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) >> > >> > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> +1 for Struts 2.0 >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return >> to the >> >> > idea of >> >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could >> >> do this >> >> > by >> >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own >> >> project and >> >> > so >> >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename >> Struts >> >> > Action as >> >> > Struts. >> >> > >> >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: >> >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 >> becomes >> >> > Struts 2.0 >> >> > 2. We rename the >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion >> >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep >> >> the >> >> > other >> >> > top level directories the same >> >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes >> org.apache.struts2 >> >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become >> struts.* >> >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts >> >> > >> >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of >> >> which >> >> > was my >> >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so >> >> we can >> >> > move >> >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. >> >> > >> >> > Don >> >> > >> >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com AIM: fzammetti Yahoo: fzammetti MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
