On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart: >> 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@googlemail.com>: >>> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want >>> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call >>> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other >>> problems. Is a Struts 2 book good for learning Struts 3 (yes, not >>> comparable to Struts 1 vs. Struts 2). What do people find at Google? >>> Will they search for Struts 3, Struts 2 or both to find useful >>> information (a lot of information for Struts 2 will still apply for 3). >>> Do we need new Logos? And there is even more if you dig deeper, I guess. >> Struts 3 version 1.0.0.1 ;-) > No, actually Struts 3 3.0.1.1 :) > > As I already said, I believe that if we counted right, we had already > 3.1.x, upcoming would be 4.0.x - but starting from major three, we > should IMO stay with consistent versioning following the said scheme. >> Maybe just keep the brand Struts and distinct them base on version >> number ? This follow the MAJOR.MINOR.... schema. > Basically I'm with you on that. Most likely though, after releasing a > Struts 3.0.0, people will coin the short term "Struts 3" within days. > > Also the problems mentioned in my last mail still remain - we once > searched a way to distinct two different frameworks, namely Struts 1 vs. > Struts 2. Struts 3.x will be in the Struts 2 framework line, and we will > have to make this clear to users. Buying a Struts 1 book is no good for > 3.x, Struts 2 is. Googling for Struts is bad, googling for Struts 2 is > not. Is the "Struts power 2" logo retired and will it be replaced by > just the good old Struts logo (also applies to the > WebWork+Struts=Strusts 2 icon)? And so on... - we should try to think > about all this beforehand and be very clear and well decided about our > communication and branding.
René is right, there's a great deal involved in the apparently simple act of moving from 2 to 3. Back in mid-2005, when the discussions around the next generation of Struts were just getting underway, we called it Struts Ti (for Titanium). That let us get on with making the much more important technical decisions before we hashed out what the heck to call the thing, and why. Eventually we called it Struts 2, but that was as much a branding decision as anything else; it's not clear that was the right decision, either, looking back on it now. A naming change from Struts 2 to Struts 3, Struts NG or basically anything that's no longer Struts 2 will send a signal to the community that the changes are of the same magnitude as those between Struts 1 and Struts 2. That is, it's not compatible, and it's not clear that it's the same framework, but we like the Struts name too much to give it up. My feeling is that we shouldn't make such a decision without very careful thought to all of the implications, large and small, as René has suggested. -- Martin Cooper > - René > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
