Struts 1.x then remains Servlet 2.2, JSP 1.1, Java 1.2.
Struts 2.x (fka 1.3.x) can then be Servlet 2.3, JSP 1.2, and Java 1.3.
Struts 3.x (fka 2.x) can then be Servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0, as planned.
If we are going to depend on Servlet 2.3, then I think it's probably worth changing the major version number.
So why not just label want we were going to do in 1.3.x as Struts 2.x, and start calling Jericho (or whatever else we do -- it's just a whiteboard) 3.x ?
However, I don't know if I believe it's worth the potential confusion and management overhead to switch to 2.3 "just because". I do think it's true that Struts can set an example and help people become familiar with new technologies, but why not do Struts 1.3 as we've planned it, unless someone has specific features they want to apply that we require?
That sounds reasonable, however to allow collaboration/many sets of eyes, we need CVS space to try out different approaches.
Can we do that with minimal effort, ie without branching the code ?
When we do get to the point of needing a straw man struts CVS 2.0 version we could either branching or starting clean ? I'd vote for branching, that way there is something to start with.
However, I would BRANCH 2_0 and keep 1.2.X as the main trunk. That way ii takes and effort to get to the strust 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
