Ted,

The below reason (3rd paragraph, man i wish yahoo did the little > things) is 
why we should probably decide to move XWork over now or forever hold our peace, 
unless of course phase I is supposed to be an alpha or preview release and 
phase II is mainly when Action 2 will be in production. In that case we can do 
anything we want and change it later. However, if we start creating a lingo and 
pass that lingo on to users creating production apps based on it, then changing 
that lingo would lead to frustrated developers.

I agree that moving over XWork has it's issues (2nd paragraph), but an 
important question to weigh against that is how do we want to set up the 
framework long term. Notice how much more elegant it is to say "Struts Web", 
"Struts Core" and just SAF than to say SAF, XWork and "the framework" 
respectively. Another important question is whether we would want to go through 
XWork to decide what to take out and add in in preparation for action 2, for 
example, creating an XWork 2.0 if XWork is to stay at OS. 

Also, I want to make it clear that moving XWork over (1st paragraph) does not 
imply lumping everything together, something I am strongly against as well. In 
fact I was more worried about XWork related features being added to SAF 2 if 
they are seperate, but it seems like everyone here is pretty committed to not 
let that happen.

Gabe



----- Original Message ----
From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:24:06 PM
Subject: Re: XWork and Struts Action 2.0


I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between
XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe
it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again.

I would definately feel that this would be too big of a change for SAF
2.0.0. No matter how simple it sounds, there would be some detail that
created a showstopper, and then another, and August would turn into
February.

I do think one problem is that our approach to referring to XWork in
the WW book and documentation is inconsistent. There is a tendency to
refer to everything as WebWork when it is not. Moving forward, I think
we simply need to be more carefult to say XWork when we mean XWork and
SAF when we mean SAF, and perhaps just refer to "the framework" when
we do not care to make the distinction.





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to