On 5/9/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wendy Smoak wrote:
> The jar manifests now have 'Apache Struts Action 1 Framework' as the
> Specification-Title. (Change struts/action/pom.xml if you prefer
> something else.)
The more I think about it, the more I don't like this title.
Me too.
I think it
should be: Apache Struts Action. Action 2 should be named Apache Struts
Action 2. Framework, IMO, is just a generic descriptor.
We already have been there, but I still think that current naming with
major version number in the name does not leave much chance for 1.x to
survive. From the "we share with what we use ourselves" standpoint
this may be ok, but users in general will avoid future 1.x versions
(if they are developed) simply because it has "old" version number.
Working on 1.x beyond 1.3 will not be gratifying experience.
If the name choice is indeed not political at all, two frameworks
should have distinct names so they could be treated as peers, not as
one being successor of another. I don't really know how this is
possible ;-) It is like, dBase and Clipper. Similar, but different.
The website should explain when one is preferrable over another (I
know that some would say there are no situations when SAF1 is
preferrable ;-).
Adding the framework in there is redundant and the "1" in the first one
is just lame. We may throw around Action 1 when talking about Action 2
to help separate them, but I don't think it should be in the proper title.
Web site talks about SAF1 config files, classes, tags, etc. This stuff
is not framework-agnostic. All this information corresponds to SAF1
_only_ (well, maybe except 0.x section that explains how HTTP works).
I would not expect that users will correspond SA with SAF1 by default,
especially with SAF2 progressing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
