--- Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some ideas, not neccessarily complete or well-formed...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: April 26, 2004 9:44 PM
> > To: Struts Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Adding new Struts features/sub-projects (was
> > [Bug 28609] -
> > Scriptable Actions Support)
> >
> > What criteria are we using when deciding what to add to the Struts
> > project?
>
> Core:
> 1. Must make Struts a better controller. (easier to use, more
> flexible, more reliable, more performant etc.)
> 2. See 1.
>
> "Scriptable Actions" seems to achieve the first two items in #1, so
> under those criteria maybe it should be in the core.
-1 on being in the core and further increasing the dependencies.
>
> Sub-projects:
>
> 1. Must add value to Struts for a good proportion of the Struts user
> base.
> 2. Must depend on Struts (does this exclude Tiles ??)
> 3. Must be of sufficient quality to be worthy of the Apache Struts
> 'brand'
> 4. Must have committers who have demonstrated a commitment to
> maintaining the add-on (either existing Struts committers or developers
> willing to become Struts committers). I think that, in practice, a few
> of the existing committers should at least be familiar with the add-on.
>
> #1 is the main reason to include a sub-project. It has to justify its
> existence by make life easier for Struts users. If it does that, we're
> performing an additional service of making it visible to a wider
> audience and easing its adoption by making it an "official" Struts
> extension. For some reason, that kind of thing means a lot to
> pointy-haired types ;-)
All valid criteria. My main concerns are having criteria to test
potential sub-projects against and not bloating Struts.
>
> > The questions I asked in the bugzilla posting haven't been
> > addressed. Why should the Struts team be expected to house
> > and support extra add-on projects?
>
> I don't see that, in this case, the Struts team is being expected to
> make any additional effort since it's already being maintained by two of
> us. Presumably, any other project would also come with developers who
> have been maintaining it separately. They could not only continue to do
> so, but also contribute to Struts core.
>
> > We've been making good progress moving code out of
> > Struts into the commons and focusing on a smaller core of
> > functionality.
> > I'd hate to reverse that trend and start bloating Struts again.
>
> Sub-projects should depend on Struts core, but not the other way around.
> So sub-projects would not bloat Struts core. Don't forget that one
> source for Struts sub-projects is the existing Struts codebase, thus
> de-bloating core Struts further.
Sounds great to me as long as struts.jar doesn't include the sub-project
code. If people want to use scriptable actions, they can download the
struts-script.jar (or whatever it's name would be). If they have no
interest in them, they can just use the standard struts.jar.
>
> > IMO, the BSF actions are a perfect example of a core Struts
> > feature (ie. Actions) allowing many neat implementations that
> > don't have to be supported by the core project.
>
> But to make life easier for Struts' users, we can provide useful,
> trusted, proven extensions from the same place they already get Struts.
>
> >
> > David
>
> Steve
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
