Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 5/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the existing branches can continue to develop, then the community
is not
hurt by breaking compatibility, they are actually HELPED because the
merger yields a much greater value in the end, and people will probably
want to migrate despite the problems.
<Friday>
I am trying to imagine a book title: "New features of Struts 1.3", and
then another one on the same shelf "Struts 2.0: a definitive guide".
Something does not feel right...
This situation is worse than General Motors product line. Imagine GM
1.3 and GM 2.0 instead of Saab 9-3 and Chevrolet Malibu. Well, Saab is
almost dead anyway.
For this reason, they should be separate projects which should be
allowed to evolve independently and indefinitely into the future (as
long as there are developers - such as yourself, apparently - who are
willing to do). There is no reason in my opinion why Struts 1.x should
not be allowed to become Struts (Classic) 2.x, 3.x, etc. at some point
in the future. It's life cycle should not be cut short by replacement
with WW. Insteady, they should be frameworks with parallel existence.
Let users decide when (if at all) to make the switch. Don't force it on
them.
With current product names and version numbers, 1.x does not stand a
chance (for new projects). I feel like improving 1.x, but I don't
think that it will make much sense. Should finish the WW book instead,
I guess.
</Friday>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
