See
* http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2898
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ 1 as well for Struts 1.x and 2.x
+1
+1 to which? ;-)
I'm for just calling them Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x, not the Struts2
version 2.1 idea. We went through that for a while with WebWork, and it
was confusing.
-
Posted
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
Mua-ha-ha :-))
+1 on renaming back.
how about renaming back become WebWork :) hue hue...
so, we, the Webwork user dont have to refactor our job.
keep the WW 2.x become WW, and the WW 3.x become Struts 2.0
rather thatn right now, all of you make me wasting my time
I think everyone knows by now that this brevity is bad programming?
On 6/30/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use
repos/asf/struts/struts1
repos/asf/struts/struts2
God yes, Don. Please don't let them go nuts again. Here you are in the
reach of sanity. Stay the course!
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm against official code names. We have had enough confusion in Struts
with
different names meaning different things, and we shouldn't
Heh, you voted him in. He is all yours.
On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Heh, what about Struts? That might work? And, then, like the rest of the
world, you could have versions like 1.* and 2.*, and 3.*. Oh, that was the
proposal which the newly knighted can't seem to stomach. Too rational.
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am very much
Things will never be simple with MJ on the team. This is typical. Learn to
live with it.
On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Heh, yah, almost like real versioning, eh?
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My two cents: I am okay with 1.x and 2.x numbering. It doesn't bother me.
I look at them in terms of generations; different people who can live
together in one family (webapp).
Michael Jouravlev
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
Give it up! Lord! What nonsense. Do you hate versioning, Paul?
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2
So if struts1 is:
org.apache.struts
If struts2:
org.apache.struts2
?
Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use
repos/asf/struts/struts1
repos/asf/struts/struts2
Or
repos/asf/struts/framework
repos/asf/struts/framework2
I like struts1/struts2.
Or, in the interest of brevity,
(from the peanut gallery)
How about:
repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/...
repos/asf/struts/trunk (2.0, 2.1, 3.0 goes here)
It's not like you're the first project here to have had a 1.3 v 2.0 issue :)
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/
Cheers,
Brett
On 30/06/06,
If we do not have different package names, we cannot run both Struts 1 and
Struts 2 in the same web application. So it's very important to encode the
version into the pacakge structure. Otherwise, the migration path to Struts 2
is all or none. This is not a unique idea; this has been espoused
On 6/30/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(from the peanut gallery)
How about:
repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/...
repos/asf/struts/trunk (2.0, 2.1, 3.0 goes here)
Yep, and different teams have tried different approaches :)
Maven has maven-1 under the root
*
On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
Now, in place of Tapestry4 and Tapestry5. we now have
struts-action and struts-action2
* http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/
which we could just rename to struts1 and struts2.
That sounds good to me.
I was just asking if we wanted to make
Greg Reddin sagely replied:
On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
Now, in place of Tapestry4 and Tapestry5. we now have
struts-action and struts-action2
* http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/
which we could just rename to struts1 and struts2.
That sounds good to me.
On 6/29/06, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2
So if struts1 is:
org.apache.struts
If struts2:
org.apache.struts2
?
Yes, the other piece of surgery would be moving
I only have an inclination against s1/s2. Otherwise, struts/struts2 or
struts1/struts2 or action1/action2 is fine by me.
Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/30/06, Brett Porter
wrote:
(from the peanut gallery)
How about:
repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/...
repos/asf/struts/trunk
On 6/28/06, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The key I think is making it clear that 2.x really is something new
Yes, if you look at the Migration Guide
* http://struts.apache.org/struts-action2/docs/Migration%20Guide.html
three of the four strategies involve either leaving S1 code
+1
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=35827messageID=70400#70400
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
+1
+1 to which? ;-)
I'm for just calling them Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x, not the Struts2 version
2.1 idea. We went through that for a while with WebWork, and it was confusing.
-
Posted via Jive Forums
Mua-ha-ha :-))
+1 on renaming back.
Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with
codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases. This had been suggested and
discussed long ago but was rejected.
Why codenames make sense:
* Job search. SAF1 and SAF2... oh... I mean, Struts 1.x and
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion
directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other
top level directories the same
What do you think of...
repos/asf/struts/struts
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action
subversion
directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep
the other
top level directories the same
What do you think of...
On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with
codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases.
If we were to do that, the obvious choices would be Classic for 1.x
and Action for 2.x.
-Ted.
I'm against official code names. We have had enough confusion in Struts with
different names meaning different things, and we shouldn't pile on more names.
If folks want to off-hand use code names, that's fine, but to have them used in
code or documentation is too far. Version 1 and 2 are
+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
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think of...
repos/asf/struts/struts
repos/asf/struts/struts2
Very true, I forgot that we have different directories for SAF1 and SAF2. The
struts/struts is redundant, but I could live with that.
But ViewVC might not :)
It
Big +1. I just wish we could have done it months ago when I (and
others) said exactly the same thing. Oh well, better late then never.
Frank
Don Brown 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
Ted Husted wrote:
Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use
repos/asf/struts/struts1
repos/asf/struts/struts2
Or
repos/asf/struts/framework
repos/asf/struts/framework2
I like struts1/struts2.
Don
-Ted.
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
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
Did I miss something? :-) Perhaps the deliberations went on in private, because
it's news to me!!! Congrats on Shale blossoming into its own project.
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
I propose code names Velvet and Rubert. Any objections?
Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mua-ha-ha :-))
+1 on renaming back.
Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with
codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases. This had been suggested and
discussed long ago but
I am very much against naming 1.x Classic . I think it's a horrible name. I
think of classical music, classic cars, and anything that smells of belonging
in a museum (stationary, old, idle, doesn't move, better looked at than used).
Why do we need it? I am totally fond of action and action2.
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
My two cents: I am okay with 1.x and 2.x numbering. It doesn't bother me. I
look at them in terms of generations; different people who can live together in
one family (webapp).
Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case we are returning to a
half-year old situation, that is,
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
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does having the departure of Shale instigate nomenclature madness? :-)
Struts Action Framework is actually a very professional title and I prefer we
keep it as is.
When Shale arrived, we tried various ways to differentiate the
original
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use
repos/asf/struts/struts1
repos/asf/struts/struts2
Or
repos/asf/struts/framework
repos/asf/struts/framework2
I like struts1/struts2.
Yep, I do too. It's simple and
On 6/28/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/28/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use
repos/asf/struts/struts1
repos/asf/struts/struts2
Or
repos/asf/struts/framework
On 6/29/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like struts1/struts2.
+1
Niall
Don
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2
So if struts1 is:
org.apache.struts
If struts2:
org.apache.struts2
?
Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/29/06, Don Brown wrote:
I like struts1/struts2.
+1
Niall
Don
44 matches
Mail list logo
