On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Paul Benedict<[email protected]> wrote: > Are you sure it's not an incompatible change? I thought the discussion was > the importing of XWork and getting rid of its branding. That means all of > XWork's annotations and packages would be changed to org.apache.struts. I > don't believe there is any desire to keep com.opensymphony when this occurs. > So my thinking would be this would be an incompatible change. Did I get it > wrong?
I think completely removing any trace of xwork is a good long term 3.0 goal, but for now, we would simply fork it, keeping the package structure and class names. Don > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Wendy Smoak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Paul Benedict<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I definitely agree that Struts 3 would be a good candidate to do this >> XWork >> > migration. It is not an appropriate candidate for 2.1, or 2.2. However, >> if >> > you like to do a 2.5 (I dislike superficial jumps in versions though), >> then >> > it might be acceptable in the 2.x branch. >> >> IMO "Struts 3" would imply a major change in Struts itself, the >> possibility of backwards incompatible changes, etc. This isn't... >> community aspects aside, it's just moving some code from one svn repo >> to another. -Wendy >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
