2013/3/18 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>: > I professionally work on a huge project where S1 is used everywhere. The > best upgrade path for us is to put S2 in the web container, write new > actions in S2, and convert the old S1 actions during maintenance. This > scheme is only possible because S2 uses a different package name. > > If S3 is going to be a better S2, I can't recommend to my boss moving to S3 > if the package name is not "struts3". I need that separate package name to > make incremental migration possible. > > Thoughts?
Argh... I thought that this is clear now... and I'm thinking and thinking about that and your point is valid. Basically with package renaming to o.a.struts we will close the migration path for all S1 based projects. So maybe we should return to S2.5 concept and set it up as middle step to S3 and beyond? Regards -- Łukasz + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
