On 1/10/06, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that > "Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in > Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already > wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts > CORe a while ago, and Ted held it up for a while. I didn't see many > objections to it on the dev list at the time.
Here's one. (An objection, that is.) The point of the "Action" in Struts Action Framework is to make clear that it is an action-oriented framework, as opposed to, for example, a component-oriented framework (for which we offer Shale). That is, it defines the "style" of the framework. Using "CoR", or some variant of it, in the name is a very bad idea, IMHO, because that is a reflection of the *implementation* of the framework, not the style of it. People don't (or shouldn't) care how the framework is implemented, so much as they care about what it does for them. If we changed the implementation to something other than CoR, but kept the public API the same, we'd have to rename the framework just to get CoR out of the name, which makes no sense at all. Use of COR since Struts 1.3 really opened it up for the future and > flexible uses. To me, Struts since 1.3 is a "Struts Command Framework" > (SCF) rather than SAF. I see a "Command 2.0" or "COR 2.0" but not > "Action 2.0"or "SAF 2.0" Again, you're looking at the implementation of the framework as opposed to its architectural style. That's not a good basis on which to name a framework. -- Martin Cooper Disclosure: I'd have an easier job marketing Struts book I coauthored > with Vic (published in German and French) with Struts COR (or Command) > than with Struts Action. We'd advocated a kind of ActionContext with > .execute(context) on top of Struts 1.1 early on. > > PS for Ted: please forgive me bringing it up again. James just struck a > chord. > > Wolfgang Gehner > > James Mitchell wrote: > > > I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then > > [Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense. > > > > I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for > > "Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages, > > then cancelled before sending......"Action" bothers me, but it's hard > > to articulate why. It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new > > name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's > > parts. Too little too late... > > > > That reminds me of a recent conversation... > > > > Developer #1 - "Hey, did you hear about the recent changes in Struts?" > > Developer #2 - "No man, when did that happen?" > > > > Developer #1 - "Last week, it's called Action now" > > Developer #2 - "But, you've always had to extend Action." > > > > Developer #1 - "No, I mean it is called Struts Action" > > Developer #2 - "Um, dude, it's been called 'Action' since the beginning" > > > > Developer #1 - "No! Struts 'Action' Framework" (with air quotes) > > Developer #2 - "So that's the new Chain thing?" > > > > Developer #1 - "It's the same framework, different name" > > Developer #2 - "You mean the new 'Ti' thing?" > > > > Developer #1 - "No! Here, go to their web site" (opens Firefox) > > > > (Developer #3 walks up) > > > > Developer #1 - "See, it's called 'Struts Action Framework'" > > Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd" > > > > Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?" > > > > Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!" > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > James Mitchell > > EdgeTech, Inc. > > http://edgetechservices.net/ > > 678.910.8017 > > Skype: jmitchtx > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Ted Husted wrote: > > > >> Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for > >> that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as > >> good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in > >> the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes. > >> > >> We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put > >> things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to > >> mention [BEER]!) This is no different. > >> > >> We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on > >> people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts > >> that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the > >> rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in > >> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the > >> mailreaders had twit lists. :) > >> > >> -Ted. > >> > >> On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm not sure this is a good idea. > >>> > >>> By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been > >>> mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll > >>> attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant > >>> trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than > >>> "you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me > >>> you can ask Ted!!" > >>> > >>> Your thoughts? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> James Mitchell > >>> EdgeTech, Inc. > >>> http://edgetechservices.net/ > >>> 678.910.8017 > >>> Skype: jmitchtx > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Struts Action Framework. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I figured that out. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Is that what Struts is now being called? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x > >>>>>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page > >>>>>> for more info. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly > >>>>> known as > >>>>> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I > was just > >>>>> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I > >>>>> think > >>>>> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any > >>>>> mindshare in > >>>>> the developer community. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on > a standard > >>>> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale > >>>> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should > we use > >>>> > >>>> * [SAF 2.x] > >>>> > >>>> or > >>>> > >>>> * [Action 2.x] > >>>> > >>>> -Ted. > >>>> > >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >>>> 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] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> HTH, Ted. > >> http://www.husted.com/poe/ > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
