We do discuss everything, right here, right now :) Having a separate menu block for Frameworks and Extensions makes sense, so I updated the site home page.
Once Struts Classic is available as a discrete entity, we might have another for "Distributions", since that's what Struts Classic is, a distribution of a set of subprojects (like a Linux distribution). -Ted. On 11/1/05, Marky Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > Maybe you are right and Core should be Core, and > the rest should be Extensions. > > But if I look at the wegsite... > http://struts.apache.org/ > > I see that Core is one of many Subprojects on the > same level such as Shales, Tiles, etc. > > If I read the text, it says... > "Apache Struts is a hotbed of activity. Struts Classic 1.3, Struts > Shale, Struts Ti, Struts OverDrive. Why so many frameworks? How are they > different? Why are they all called Struts? Which is the best choice for > my next project? In this session, we step back and look at Struts > through a wide-angle lens." > > Hmm, yes, maybe the Struts movement should really discuss how > things get communicated... > > Best regards, > Marky > > > Wolfgang Gehner wrote: > > > That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be > > understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE > > strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's a > > very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as > > "Chain Of REsponsibility" :-) > > So my afterthought is: wouldn't it be cool if I could say "We're using > > Struts CORE with the XXX extension" > > With CORE in capital letters. Or CORe? Either way, it would stand for: > > Robust yet up to speed. Established yet pushing the envelope. Using > > patterns yet being open. Also reflects the motivations for moving to > > the new architecture. > > > > XXX could be Ti, Shale, some DAO, AJAX, RoR, whatever. > > > > Should have read ... 1.3 seems to be *imminent*... > > > > Wolfgang > > > > Marky Goldstein wrote: > > > >> As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that > >> there are many cells of people working on different editions > >> of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc. > >> > >> Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups > >> should come together to discuss if they have commons. > >> > >> Do you think that one day we will have THAT FRAMEWORK > >> or we still have to decide on many different frameworks? Hmm, > >> I don't think that a web application framework should be decided > >> on the requriements. I think there should be one good one for all > >> requirements that occur in 99% of all web applications. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Marky > >> > >> Wolfgang Gehner wrote: > >> > >>> I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent. > >>> > >>> I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects, > >>> too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than > >>> a minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from the new > >>> flexibility this *major new feature* offers. > >>> > >>> I've also seen the great amount of work that goes into this release. > >>> > >>> To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0. > >>> > >>> Hell, if you are scared about that, call it at least 1.5, but > >>> consider to give it the merit it deserves. > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> I think it really deserves it. I know Struts versioning has always > >>> been conservative, but I am not advocating to call it Struts 5 (like > >>> Java 5), which might look too much like marketing. Here we are > >>> talking about the real value this new version will provide. > >>> > >>> Everyone wonders if Struts is dying. I don't think it is. With > >>> 1.3/"1.5" it gets a major push as far as extensibility is concerned > >>> (which should be a key role of any <i>framework</i>. With tweaking > >>> the struts chains, creating a "Struby" (Ruby on Struts) would > >>> probably be the work of a fun long weekend. Talk about extending the > >>> life of Struts, here it is. > >>> > >>> Humbly, I think same goes for the label "Struts Classic", which I > >>> personally gives it the image of old, which certainly 1.3 (1.5) does > >>> not deserve. I think the label Struts Classic should be dropped. > >>> Marketing uses "Classic" when they want to discourage people using > >>> it, and rather buy something new. Or they blundered on something > >>> new. Neither is the case here. > >>> > >>> Also, would anyone want to step forward and be vocal about what is > >>> new with Struts 1.3 ("1.5") in discussions like > >>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37365 ? > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Wolfgang Gehner > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > R.Ø.S.A. > Identity: Marky Goldstein > E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Task: Managing Director, Product & Strategy > > R.Ø.S.A. Creation. Technology. Intelligence. AG > Seefeldstrasse 231, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland > Phone: +41 1 389 63 33 > Fax: +41 1 389 63 30 > URL: http://www.rosa.com/ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- HTH, Ted. http://www.husted.com/poe/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
