I am very much against naming 1.x "Classic" . I think it's a horrible name. I
think of classical music, classic cars, and anything that smells of belonging
in a museum (stationary, old, idle, doesn't move, better looked at than used).
Why do we need it? I am totally fond of action and action2. Why does having the
departure of Shale instigate nomenclature madness? :-) Struts Action Framework
is actually a very professional title and I prefer we keep it as is.
Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with
> codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases.
If we were to do that, the obvious choices would be Classic for 1.x
and Action for 2.x.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2ยข/min or less.
