Similar thinking anyway Jack :) You tend to use a lot of big words that my primitive brain can't handle mid-week :) but otherwise...
My point simply boils down to this... Anyone that CAN upgrade to 1.3 will probably do so, and likely won't notice any difference, at least as 1.3 stands now as far as I know it... some of the discussions yesterday and today could change that, but assuming not, then this is probably true. It's those of us that CAN'T upgrade, and maybe won't be able to for a while, that concerns me. And there are those that simply DON'T want to upgrade too. If there are those of us willing to keep 1.2 alive and developing, assuming we do so with forward-compatibility in mind, I can't see why there wouldn't be support for this. And also note I'm not saying anyone should support 1.1 or prior, but I do feel that supporting and expanding the latest and greatest in 1.3, AS WELL AS the *immediate predecessor* 1.2 version, keeps more people happy than does just building on 1.3. If the struts committers only want to focus their own time on 1.3, that's cool, I understand that, but if someone else is willing to do what they are not, why not support the effort? -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Wed, March 16, 2005 1:12 pm, Dakota Jack said: > If Frank is thinking the way I am, there is a real worry that what was > an idea to use Chain of Responsibility on top of Template Method to > make a composable request processor to make Struts more flexible, an > idea that probably will have to be significantly refactored after > testing, is getting to look like a jacket that will be placed in a lot > of areas of Struts prior to refactoring, etc. and leading to rigidity > in a different direction. Thus, in order to avoid having to go to a > different world view and leaving open the extension of the present > one, many of us are beginning to hang on to copies of 1.2 as the > potential basis for the future at this point. > > Jack > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:53:52 -0000, Niall Pemberton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:32 PM >> >> > But if there are others that still want or need to use 1.2, and there >> are >> > some that are willing to tackle some of that work, wouldn't there be >> > support for that (keeping compatibility in mind of course, I think >> that's >> > a perfectly valid concern)? I mean, let's be honest, there's probably >> not >> > a whole lot coming down the pipe that can and/or could be back-ported, >> but >> > if something comes up, at least until enough of the community has >> moved to >> > 1.3, and there are people willing to do it, why not support that >> effort? >> >> What I don't understand is if 1.3 is compatible with 1.2 then why are >> you >> happy to move to a new 1.2.x release, but not a new 1.3 release? The >> only >> reason I can think of is if someone has customized the the 1.2 >> RequestProcessor? What I'm supporting is all running under v1.2 >> currently >> and I'm expecting upgrading to v1.3 to not be a big deal. >> >> Niall >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
