I hate to bring this question back, but do we have a final decision on
how 1.x and 2.x codebases are treated name-wise and what is the
official way to refer to a product/version?
Because seems that Don, for example, have a different idea on naming:
I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts
I think you are over-thinking this one. Struts is a single product with
multiple versions. Since both are still developed, at times, it is helpful to
refer to Struts 2.0 as Struts 2 and Struts 1.x as Struts 1, but these names are
really optional and a tool to help clarify versions. In the
I think that there should be ONE strict naming system that every
commiter has to obey whether writing a high-profile article or an
informan email. Such a system will indeed serve as a tool to help
clarify versions. After all, when I say for example Struts 2 I do
not want to explain later have I
On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a system is usually a good thing.
Perhaps it would help to define these terms, which I think many people
use naturally.
Struts 2 - The product represented by the repository head.
Struts 2.x - The product that the repository head is
So in your terms Struts 2 == SAF2. This does not tell me much ;-) Is
it strictly WW2.x or anything starting from WW2.x codebase onwards? I
guess the latter considering that Struts 2 is represented by the
repository head.
See, your definition is not clear enough for an end user while being
too
On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in your terms Struts 2 == SAF2. This does not tell me much ;-) Is
it strictly WW2.x or anything starting from WW2.x codebase onwards?
I guess the latter considering that Struts 2 is represented by the
repository head.
Yes, I think the
IMHO Struts means the latest/current developmentin other
words...SAF2, struts2, 2.x,
I think we should just say Struts, but clarify only if we mean an
older version. I mean, we do that now with everything else. If
someone has a question about Struts, and it happens to pertain to 1.0
That assumes all the development and support effort go towards one
framework, Struts 2. If we're still actively supporting and
developing the Struts 1.x line, then references to Struts should
include a qualification of which Struts framework is meant.
Hubert
On 7/5/06, James Mitchell [EMAIL
I respectfully disagree. I think having to clarify Struts as 1
or 2 is just as bad as having to say Struts Action 1 vs. Struts
Action 2 vs. Shale.
Believe me, I'm not trying to discount the 1.x development. I have
stated as much on several threads. Also, I have many 1.x apps to
On 7/5/06, James Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your thoughts?
I think we are dangerously closed to discussion what is is :)
So, lets have that discussion and get it over with.
First, in practice, the committers uniformly cite what version we are
talking about. I don't think we have a
On 7/5/06, James Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believe me, I'm not trying to discount the 1.x development. I have
stated as much on several threads. Also, I have many 1.x apps to
support, and I think my recent work on getting the 1.2.x and 1.3.x
nightlies back online proves my commitment
On 7/5/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/5/06, James Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your thoughts?
I think we are dangerously closed to discussion what is is :)
So, lets have that discussion and get it over with.
skipped
Other people are going to refer to Struts the same way
On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The disagreement and confusion is having and publicly using 1 and
2 labels. Do we use them internally? Do we use them publicly?
Everything we do is public. There aren't any secret internal-use labels.
What do these labels mean? Do they
On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The disagreement and confusion is having and publicly using 1 and
2 labels. Do we use them internally? Do we use them publicly? What
do these labels mean? Do they identify generations like Java and Java2
or Win9x and WinNT, or do they
I do not think Struts connotates 1.x, or 2.x, or the current production
release, or whatever. It's just a title for our line of products. If you need
to talk about a version, just say so. I am content and agree with James.
James Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I respectfully disagree. I
Everything we do is public. There aren't any secret internal use labels.
Ted, then you are obviously not in on the secret. :)
Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
The disagreement and confusion is having and publicly using 1 and
2 labels. Do we use them
Does anyone else find this kind of title redudant?
Struts 1 - Core 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT API
We can specify it in the pom. I recommend:
Struts Core 1.3.5-SNAPSHOT API
?
Paul
-
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically
Wendy, thanks. I understand the proposal. Version 1 is already in 1.3.5; so it
doesn't need to be said everytime; the version number is enough to indicate its
version 1.
Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/2/06, Paul Benedict
wrote:
Does anyone else find this kind of title redudant?
It might appear redundant but Struts 1 is the name rather than
version number and hopefully what people will get used to distinguish
between the two flavours on offer. Its no different than what Sun did
when they introduced Java 2 and who knows where out version numbers
are going to go in the two
Okay. I guess it doesn't matter, as long as we don't see the title Struts 2
with another version besides 2.x :-)
Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might appear redundant but
Struts 1 is the name rather than
version number and hopefully what people will get used to distinguish
between
20 matches
Mail list logo
