interesting. and promising! i'll keep on eye on this. webwork has long had better velocity integration that struts. this proposed merger might either obviate the need for VelocityStruts integration in VelocityTools or else provide an opportune time to shift some of that code over to the "StrutsWork" community. :) if i haven't already noticed it happening, feel free to ping [EMAIL PROTECTED] if/when you work on merging WebWork's Velocity support. i'd be happy to help with that.
On 11/25/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Presented by: Don Brown, Ted Husted, Jason Carreira, and Patrick Lightbody > > Between the Clarity hubbub [1] and the Java Web Alignment brouhaha > [2], it came up that WebWork would like to merge with another > framework. Ted and Don followed up with the two core WebWork > developers, Patrick Lightbody and Jason Carreira. As it turns out, > they are very interested in merging WebWork with Struts. An archive of > our discussions is available as a Quick Topic thread [3]. > > As some of you know, the underlying idea behind Ti was to use WebWork > as the core of Struts Action Framework 2.x. Conceptually, WebWork and > Struts 1.x are very similar. We've often said, without embarrassment, > that WebWork does many things better than Struts 1.x. Meanwhile, > WebWork has the ability to provide a layer of almost full > backwards-compatibility for Struts 1.x, and we have already > demonstrated we can integrate Beehive's (very cool) Page Flow with > WebWork. > > PROPOSAL: Bring WebWork into Struts through Struts Ti > > We would to amend the Struts Ti sandbox proposal to provide for > merging WebWork 2.2 into our codebase. The WebWork merger would be Ti > phase 1. Much of the work now proposed for Ti would become phase 2. > > * Ti phase 1 = WebWork 2.2 + Struts 1.x compatibility library and > migration tools > * Ti phase 2 = phase 1 + Commons Chain integration + Beehive's Page > Flow + simplified annotations + quick development mode > > When the Ti phase 1 has coalesced and is providing a high degree of > Struts 1.x compatibility, our intention would be to propose Ti as a > Struts Action Framework 2.x candidate. Until that time, we would > continue to consider Ti a "next generation" proposal and, pending a > decison by the PMC, avoid attaching the 2.x label to Ti. > > When BeeHive Page Flow matures, it may be proposed to be merged with > Struts Ti as phase 2. That work could also be positioned as a new > subproject depending on where the PMC feels it would be better suited. > As we work on Struts Ti, we would also expect that work would continue > on Struts Action 1.x, perhaps including feature changes that would > bring the codebases even closer together. > > To get started, we could bring the WebWork codebase into the > Foundation through the Incubator. As part of the proposal to the > Incubator, we could elect Patrick and Jason as committers, so that > they could help us get Ti ready for an acceptance vote. > > There is also a Confluence space [4] setup to manage documents > relating to the proposal. > > -- Don Brown, Ted Husted, Jason Carreira, and Patrick Lightbody. > > [1] Clarity - > http://opensource2.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/WAG/Clarity > > [2] Java Web Alignment Group - > http://opensource2.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/WAG/Home > > [3] Quick Topic Thread - > http://www.quicktopic.com/33/H/KBfrHFUehSj/p16.1#QTmsg4 > > [4] Confluence space - http://opensource.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/x/kQY > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
