Re: svn commit: r1185523 - /struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml
Bye Bye Maurizio Committer, Welcome Maurizio PMC Member :-) Kind regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ 2011/10/18 mcucchi...@apache.org: Author: mcucchiara Date: Tue Oct 18 08:05:20 2011 New Revision: 1185523 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1185523view=rev Log: Change of role Modified: struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml Modified: struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml?rev=1185523r1=1185522r2=1185523view=diff == --- struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml (original) +++ struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml Tue Oct 18 08:05:20 2011 @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ idmcucchiara/id emailmcucchiara at apache.org/email roles - roleCommitter/role + rolePMC Member/role /roles /developer /developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1185523 - /struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml
2011/10/18 Łukasz Lenart lukasz.len...@googlemail.com: Bye Bye Maurizio Committer, Welcome Maurizio PMC Member :-) Congrats Maurizio! I actually had the impression you were already on the Struts PMC - you deserved it :-) Cheers Christian Kind regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ 2011/10/18 mcucchi...@apache.org: Author: mcucchiara Date: Tue Oct 18 08:05:20 2011 New Revision: 1185523 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1185523view=rev Log: Change of role Modified: struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml Modified: struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml?rev=1185523r1=1185522r2=1185523view=diff == --- struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml (original) +++ struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml Tue Oct 18 08:05:20 2011 @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ idmcucchiara/id emailmcucchiara at apache.org/email roles - roleCommitter/role + rolePMC Member/role /roles /developer /developers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org -- http://www.grobmeier.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1185523 - /struts/maven/trunk/pom/pom.xml
Łukasz Lenart wrote: Bye Bye Maurizio Committer, Welcome Maurizio PMC Member :-) Gongratulations Maurizio! And thank you for your great work on Struts2 in the past month. Johannes - web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep -- View this message in context: http://struts.1045723.n5.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r1185523-struts-maven-trunk-pom-pom-xml-tp4912880p4913069.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
I agree to Łukasz we should follow the MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH scheme, because this is what the users understand and expect. But maybe we should also think about a new Brand like Struts NG like suggested by Rene. Because many developers and media associate with the Brand Struts the old Struts 1 version. I don't know if Struts NG is the right name for the new brand but we should not use a version number in the brand. Johannes - web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep -- View this message in context: http://struts.1045723.n5.nabble.com/Deprecate-2-1-version-tp4894635p4913127.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Definitely +1 for the naming convention I don't know if Struts NG is the right name for the new brand but we should not use a version number in the brand. I agree with Johannes, this time we should strongly consider to keep away the version number from the brand. Honestly, I am afraid that NG sounds like: big revolution, you need to change your mind. We experienced the openness of many users which are still having troubles to switch from 2.1.8.1 to 2.2.x. BTW, I think It might be interesting to know how many users are still using Struts 1. Just my 2 cents Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara Maurizio Cucchiara - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Well, the Struts NG reference in my mail was meant to recall our naming discussions when the merger between Struts and WebWork took place. We decided against it, and I think it's too late now to go that way - what came out as Struts 2 was actually the Next Generation, something breaking - now we're improving only :) I don't recall exactly if I was for or against Struts NG as one of the supposed names, but nowadays I think we should have been better off choosing a name without a version tag (not necessary NG). That is what the PS was really about... 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. - René Am 18.10.11 00:03, schrieb Johannes Geppert: I agree to Łukasz we should follow the MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH scheme, because this is what the users understand and expect. But maybe we should also think about a new Brand like Struts NG like suggested by Rene. Because many developers and media associate with the Brand Struts the old Struts 1 version. I don't know if Struts NG is the right name for the new brand but we should not use a version number in the brand. Johannes - web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep -- View this message in context: http://struts.1045723.n5.nabble.com/Deprecate-2-1-version-tp4894635p4913127.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - 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
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
2011/10/18 Maurizio Cucchiara mcucchi...@apache.org: BTW, I think It might be interesting to know how many users are still using Struts 1. A lot, banks are the top most users ;-) Regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
回复: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
nobody. 2011-10-18 hiyoucai 发件人: Łukasz Lenart lukasz.len...@googlemail.com 发送时间: 2011-10-18 18:35 主 题: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version 收件人: Struts Developers List dev@struts.apache.org 2011/10/18 Maurizio Cucchiara mcucchi...@apache.org: BTW, I think It might be interesting to know how many users are still using Struts 1. A lot, banks are the top most users ;-) Regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
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 ;-) Maybe just keep the brand Struts and distinct them base on version number ? This follow the MAJOR.MINOR schema. Regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
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
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Good day Struts Developers: I have enjoyed reading your conversation about the Struts brand. I believe the Struts brand-name is one of the most valuable in the web-framework space. There is something comforting and reassuring to developers about the simplicity of the Struts brand-name. In exactly the same fashion developers know they can lean on Spring, they also know that they can count on Struts to provide a tier-1 software solution. In my opinion, any pollution of the brand-name, over and above an associated version number, would be a mistake. Kudos to everyone involved in making the Struts brand what it is today. Please continue the good work! Best, @jeffblack360 From: Martin Cooper mfncoo...@gmail.com To: Struts Developers List dev@struts.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version 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
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
I agree with deprecating older branches of 2.x and with the proposed versioning scheme. As far as the name goes, that's a tough call. I'd stick with Struts 2 until the API is changed in a major way or we run out of version numbers. Struts 3 is possible, but just pushes the problem into the future. I agree that eventually a brand without a version would be good. How about WebWork? On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jeff Black jeffrey.bl...@yahoo.comwrote: Good day Struts Developers: I have enjoyed reading your conversation about the Struts brand. I believe the Struts brand-name is one of the most valuable in the web-framework space. There is something comforting and reassuring to developers about the simplicity of the Struts brand-name. In exactly the same fashion developers know they can lean on Spring, they also know that they can count on Struts to provide a tier-1 software solution. In my opinion, any pollution of the brand-name, over and above an associated version number, would be a mistake. Kudos to everyone involved in making the Struts brand what it is today. Please continue the good work! Best, @jeffblack360 From: Martin Cooper mfncoo...@gmail.com To: Struts Developers List dev@struts.apache.org Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version 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
