My thoughts its a good way to keep a separate package name ? One question Do the S3 architecture will change ? Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> Sender: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:17:34 To: Struts Developers List<dev@struts.apache.org> Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org> Subject: Re: Struts 3 package name Using the Shade plugin is an option as long as I can shade everything appropriately. I don't know if that's a really good choice as opposed to a separate package name. Paul On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara <mcucchi...@apache.org>wrote: > Before reading Lukasz's message [1], probably I would have said that > changing the package name to struts3 would have been a good idea. > After all, many Apache Commons projects have chosen this schema. > As you know, you can use two versions of commons lang without experiencing > any problem. > However, I think that it would be really hard for a big framework like > Spring or Struts. > Presumably, they will use the same entry points (like web > filters/listeners, xml files, classpath scanner, etc) and it couldn't be > very easy to isolate two version of the same framework. > > You can always count on package relocation via Maven Shade Plugin [2] > > Just my 2 cents. > > [1] http://goo.gl/o1cfF > [2] http://goo.gl/a33wN > > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara > VisualizeMe: http://vizualize.me/maurizio.cucchiara?r=maurizio.cucchiara > > Maurizio Cucchiara > > > On 18 March 2013 17:11, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > 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? > > >
