Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
See * http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2898 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
+ 1 as well for Struts 1.x and 2.x >> +1 > > +1 to which? ;-) > > I'm for just calling them Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x, not the Struts2 > version 2.1 idea. We went through that for a while with WebWork, and it > was confusing. > - > Posted via Jive Forums > http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=35827&messageID=70436#70436 > > > - > 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]
Re: Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I think everyone knows by now that this brevity is bad programming? On 6/30/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Husted wrote: > > Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use > > > >> repos/asf/struts/struts1 > >> repos/asf/struts/struts2 > > > > Or > > > >> repos/asf/struts/framework > >> repos/asf/struts/framework2 > > I like struts1/struts2. Or, in the interest of brevity, even repos/asf/struts/s1 repos/asf/struts/s2 -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stupid Struts Movement... Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Michael Jouravlev wrote: Mua-ha-ha :-)) +1 on renaming back. how about renaming back become WebWork :) hue hue... so, we, the Webwork user dont have to refactor our job. keep the WW 2.x become WW, and the WW 3.x become Struts 2.0 rather thatn right now, all of you make me wasting my time use WW 2.2, and if there are WW 2.3, we must refactor it. NB: Struts team wasting our time here., are you all pushing us to use JSF? Frans - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I only have an inclination against s1/s2. Otherwise, struts/struts2 or struts1/struts2 or action1/action2 is fine by me. Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/30/06, Brett Porter wrote: > (from the peanut gallery) > > How about: > repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/... > repos/asf/struts/trunk (2.0, 2.1, 3.0 goes here) Yep, and different teams have tried different approaches :) Maven has maven-1 under the root * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/ Tapestry has Tapestry# folders for each series * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tapestry/ And, as mentioned, HTTPD uses branches * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ Given the infrastructure we already haven in place, the "Tapestry" approach would make the most sense, since that's what we are already using. Before just renaming the framework from "Action" to "Struts", without discussion, we opened this thread to be sure all the committers were good with that. And, it seems that we are. Now, in place of "Tapestry4" and "Tapestry5". we now have "struts-action" and "struts-action2" * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/ which we could just rename to "struts1" and "struts2". I was just asking if we wanted to make the reference "s1" and "s2". (The Maven team shortens their version references to m1 and m2, and I wondered if we wanted to reinforce that convention.) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/29/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2 So if struts1 is: org.apache.struts If struts2: org.apache.struts2 ? Yes, the other piece of surgery would be moving http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/action2/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/struts/action2/ to http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/action2/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/struts2/ along with the relevant package renames. -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Greg Reddin sagely replied: > On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Ted Husted wrote: > > > Now, in place of "Tapestry4" and "Tapestry5". we now have > > "struts-action" and "struts-action2" > > > > * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/ > > > > which we could just rename to "struts1" and "struts2". > > That sounds good to me. > > > > > I was just asking if we wanted to make the reference "s1" and "s2". > > This works but I prefer the more explicit "struts1" and > "struts2". I > can live with it either way. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On Jun 30, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Ted Husted wrote: Now, in place of "Tapestry4" and "Tapestry5". we now have "struts-action" and "struts-action2" * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/ which we could just rename to "struts1" and "struts2". That sounds good to me. I was just asking if we wanted to make the reference "s1" and "s2". This works but I prefer the more explicit "struts1" and "struts2". I can live with it either way. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/30/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (from the peanut gallery) How about: repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/... repos/asf/struts/trunk (2.0, 2.1, 3.0 goes here) Yep, and different teams have tried different approaches :) Maven has maven-1 under the root * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/ Tapestry has Tapestry# folders for each series * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tapestry/ And, as mentioned, HTTPD uses branches * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/ Given the infrastructure we already haven in place, the "Tapestry" approach would make the most sense, since that's what we are already using. Before just renaming the framework from "Action" to "Struts", without discussion, we opened this thread to be sure all the committers were good with that. And, it seems that we are. Now, in place of "Tapestry4" and "Tapestry5". we now have "struts-action" and "struts-action2" * http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/ which we could just rename to "struts1" and "struts2". I was just asking if we wanted to make the reference "s1" and "s2". (The Maven team shortens their version references to m1 and m2, and I wondered if we wanted to reinforce that convention.) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
If we do not have different package names, we cannot run both Struts 1 and Struts 2 in the same web application. So it's very important to encode the version into the pacakge structure. Otherwise, the migration path to Struts 2 is all or none. This is not a unique idea; this has been espoused by other committers. Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Give it up! Lord! What nonsense. Do you hate versioning, Paul? On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict wrote: > > I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2 > > So if struts1 is: > org.apache.struts > > If struts2: > org.apache.struts2 > > ? > > Niall Pemberton wrote: On 6/29/06, Don > Brown wrote: > > > > I like struts1/struts2. > > +1 > > Niall > > > Don > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > - > Do you Yahoo!? > Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ - Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
(from the peanut gallery) How about: repos/asf/struts/branches/struts-1.3/... repos/asf/struts/trunk (2.0, 2.1, 3.0 goes here) It's not like you're the first project here to have had a 1.3 v 2.0 issue :) http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/ Cheers, Brett On 30/06/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Or, in the interest of brevity, even repos/asf/struts/s1 repos/asf/struts/s2 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ted Husted wrote: > Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use > >> repos/asf/struts/struts1 >> repos/asf/struts/struts2 > > Or > >> repos/asf/struts/framework >> repos/asf/struts/framework2 I like struts1/struts2. Or, in the interest of brevity, even repos/asf/struts/s1 repos/asf/struts/s2 -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Give it up! Lord! What nonsense. Do you hate versioning, Paul? On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2 So if struts1 is: org.apache.struts If struts2: org.apache.struts2 ? Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/29/06, Don Brown wrote: > > I like struts1/struts2. +1 Niall > Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Yah, engineers will understand this. In fact, the only people in the world that seem to have trouble with it are Struts committers. The fact that people can seriously debate the efficacy of standard versioning is amazing. On 6/28/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's a good point Michael. My answer to it would be that it's just something we have to live with. Paul used the term "generation" to differentiate Struts 1.x from 2.x... to me though, "generation" has the same connotation as does "classic". I don't think there's any real contradiction though... you use the Win9x vs. WinNT comparison, and I think that's apt... they are both Windows in the end, just like both "generations", or whatever, would still be "Struts". Microsoft sometimes does back-port features... I don't think there's any difference between that and continuing to evolve 1.x and 2.x at the same time. The key I think is making it clear that 2.x really is something new, and I personally suspect largely incompatible in terms of migrating existing apps to it... if that winds up being true, then people are going to be very happy that 1.x continues to evolve, and I doubt it will be confusing if it's explained well. Frank Michael Jouravlev wrote: > In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, > Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider > the announcements like this: > > "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 > as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include > ... " > > and then: > > "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts > framework. New features include ... " > > Things have not got simpler after divorce :) > > I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But > I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about > releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. > > So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at > them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but > former 9x users too :-)) > > On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts >> 2.1, >> etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a >> single project, >> getting away from this concept of separately versioned >> "subprojects". There >> will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, >> and perhaps >> some day, Struts 3.x releases. >> >> Don >> >> Michael Jouravlev wrote: >> > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts >> > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version >> > 4.0 >> > >> > :-) >> > >> > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) >> > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and >> > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? >> > (Obviously I prefer the latter) >> > How version numbers correspond to project names? >> > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I >> think yes) >> > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? >> > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) >> > >> > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> +1 for Struts 2.0 >> >> >> >> Bob >> >> >> >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return >> to the >> >> > idea of >> >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could >> >> do this >> >> > by >> >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own >> >> project and >> >> > so >> >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename >> Struts >> >> > Action as >> >> > Struts. >> >> > >> >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: >> >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 >> becomes >> >> > Struts 2.0 >> >> > 2. We rename the >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion >> >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep >> >> the >> >> > other >> >> > top level directories the same >> >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes >> org.apache.struts2 >> >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become >> struts.* >> >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts >> >> > >> >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of >> >> which >> >> > was my >> >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so >> >> we can >> >> > move >> >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. >> >> > >> >> > Don >> >> > >> >> > >> - >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Heh, yah, almost like real versioning, eh? On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My two cents: I am okay with 1.x and 2.x numbering. It doesn't bother me. I look at them in terms of generations; different people who can live together in one family (webapp). Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider the announcements like this: "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " and then: "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " Things have not got simpler after divorce :) I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but former 9x users too :-)) On 6/28/06, Don Brown wrote: > I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, > etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single project, > getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There > will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and perhaps > some day, Struts 3.x releases. > > Don > > Michael Jouravlev wrote: > > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts > > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version > > 4.0 > > > > :-) > > > > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) > > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and > > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? > > (Obviously I prefer the latter) > > How version numbers correspond to project names? > > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) > > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? > > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) > > > > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee wrote: > >> +1 for Struts 2.0 > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown wrote: > >> > > >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > >> > idea of > >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could > >> do this > >> > by > >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own > >> project and > >> > so > >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > >> > Action as > >> > Struts. > >> > > >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0becomes > >> > Struts 2.0 > >> > 2. We rename the > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep > >> the > >> > other > >> > top level directories the same > >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > >> > > >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of > >> which > >> > was my > >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so > >> we can > >> > move > >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > >> > > >> > Don > >> > > >> > - > >> > 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] > > > > > > > - > 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] - Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free. -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Things will never be simple with MJ on the team. This is typical. Learn to live with it. On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider the announcements like this: "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " and then: "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " Things have not got simpler after divorce :) I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but former 9x users too :-)) On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, > etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single project, > getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There > will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and perhaps > some day, Struts 3.x releases. > > Don > > Michael Jouravlev wrote: > > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts > > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version > > 4.0 > > > > :-) > > > > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) > > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and > > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? > > (Obviously I prefer the latter) > > How version numbers correspond to project names? > > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) > > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? > > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) > > > > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 for Struts 2.0 > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > >> > idea of > >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could > >> do this > >> > by > >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own > >> project and > >> > so > >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > >> > Action as > >> > Struts. > >> > > >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0becomes > >> > Struts 2.0 > >> > 2. We rename the > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep > >> the > >> > other > >> > top level directories the same > >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > >> > > >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of > >> which > >> > was my > >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so > >> we can > >> > move > >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > >> > > >> > Don > >> > > >> > - > >> > 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] > > > > > > > - > 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] -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Heh, what about Struts? That might work? And, then, like the rest of the world, you could have versions like 1.* and 2.*, and 3.*. Oh, that was the proposal which the newly knighted can't seem to stomach. Too rational. On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 2¢/min or less. -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Heh, you voted him in. He is all yours. On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version 4.0 :-) 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? (Obviously I prefer the latter) How version numbers correspond to project names? Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for Struts 2.0 > > Bob > > On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > > idea of > > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this > > by > > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and > > so > > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > > Action as > > Struts. > > > > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0becomes > > Struts 2.0 > > 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the > > other > > top level directories the same > > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > > > > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which > > was my > > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can > > move > > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > > > > Don > > > > - > > 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] -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
God yes, Don. Please don't let them go nuts again. Here you are in the reach of sanity. Stay the course! On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm against "official" code names. We have had enough confusion in Struts with different names meaning different things, and we shouldn't pile on more names. If folks want to off-hand use code names, that's fine, but to have them used in code or documentation is too far. Version 1 and 2 are simple enough. Don Ted Husted wrote: > On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
> +1 +1 to which? ;-) I'm for just calling them Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x, not the Struts2 version 2.1 idea. We went through that for a while with WebWork, and it was confusing. - Posted via Jive Forums http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=35827&messageID=70436#70436 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
+1 - Posted via Jive Forums http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=35827&messageID=70400#70400 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The key I think is making it clear that 2.x really is something new Yes, if you look at the Migration Guide * http://struts.apache.org/struts-action2/docs/Migration%20Guide.html three of the four strategies involve either leaving S1 code alone or reworking it for S2. In my own experience, the rework is mild and mainly involves substituting this for that or leaving something out altogether (because it isn't needed any more). I've set aside July to work on nothing but wrapping up a Struts 2.0.0 distribution and addressing migration issues. Migration is a key concern to me, because, like everyone else, I've a lot of S1 knowhow that I want to apply to S2. Happily, I am finding that S1 experience does translate directly to S2. To help keep migration on the front-burner, in addition to the free online resources, I'm also holding a live five-day migration workshop in mid-August, and I put in for a two-day migration tutorial for ApacheCon in October (if they accept it).) In terms of aplication test-cases, aside from the usual suspects, a friend of mine has a model-one scriptlet-based application that he would like to make open source and migrate to S2. * http://sectionxsports.com/ The problem domain is providing Sports information about youth sports teams. Should make for an interesting "example" application. :) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I am guessing the winner is going to be struts1/struts2 So if struts1 is: org.apache.struts If struts2: org.apache.struts2 ? Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/29/06, Don Brown wrote: > > I like struts1/struts2. +1 Niall > Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/29/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I like struts1/struts2. +1 Niall Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ted Husted wrote: > > Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use > > > >> repos/asf/struts/struts1 > >> repos/asf/struts/struts2 > > > > Or > > > >> repos/asf/struts/framework > >> repos/asf/struts/framework2 > > I like struts1/struts2. Yep, I do too. It's simple and straighforward - the best way to minimise confusion and make it obvious what goes where. +1. If we're not going to go with "codename" identifiers (although I'm personally partial to that ... all the Creator releases have had shark-themed names :-), then struts1/struts2 makes a lot of sense. The "generational" theme resonates, and encourages the correct amount of forethought before making substantively backwards incompatible changes. -- Martin Cooper Craig
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ted Husted wrote: > Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use > >> repos/asf/struts/struts1 >> repos/asf/struts/struts2 > > Or > >> repos/asf/struts/framework >> repos/asf/struts/framework2 I like struts1/struts2. Yep, I do too. It's simple and straighforward - the best way to minimise confusion and make it obvious what goes where. -- Martin Cooper Don > > > -Ted. > > - > 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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. When Shale arrived, we tried various ways to differentiate the original framework from "Struts Shale" -- Struts Classic, Struts Core, and finally, Struts Action Framework. But to most people, Struts is just _Struts_. It always has been, and we never managed to convince them otherwise. :) -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
That's a good point Michael. My answer to it would be that it's just something we have to live with. Paul used the term "generation" to differentiate Struts 1.x from 2.x... to me though, "generation" has the same connotation as does "classic". I don't think there's any real contradiction though... you use the Win9x vs. WinNT comparison, and I think that's apt... they are both Windows in the end, just like both "generations", or whatever, would still be "Struts". Microsoft sometimes does back-port features... I don't think there's any difference between that and continuing to evolve 1.x and 2.x at the same time. The key I think is making it clear that 2.x really is something new, and I personally suspect largely incompatible in terms of migrating existing apps to it... if that winds up being true, then people are going to be very happy that 1.x continues to evolve, and I doubt it will be confusing if it's explained well. Frank Michael Jouravlev wrote: In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider the announcements like this: "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " and then: "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " Things have not got simpler after divorce :) I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but former 9x users too :-)) On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single project, getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and perhaps some day, Struts 3.x releases. Don Michael Jouravlev wrote: > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version > 4.0 > > :-) > > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? > (Obviously I prefer the latter) > How version numbers correspond to project names? > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) > > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1 for Struts 2.0 >> >> Bob >> >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the >> > idea of >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could >> do this >> > by >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own >> project and >> > so >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts >> > Action as >> > Struts. >> > >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes >> > Struts 2.0 >> > 2. We rename the >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep >> the >> > other >> > top level directories the same >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts >> > >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of >> which >> > was my >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so >> we can >> > move >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. >> > >> > Don >> > >> > - >> > 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] > > - 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] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
My two cents: I am okay with 1.x and 2.x numbering. It doesn't bother me. I look at them in terms of generations; different people who can live together in one family (webapp). Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider the announcements like this: "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " and then: "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " Things have not got simpler after divorce :) I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but former 9x users too :-)) On 6/28/06, Don Brown wrote: > I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, > etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single > project, > getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There > will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and > perhaps > some day, Struts 3.x releases. > > Don > > Michael Jouravlev wrote: > > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts > > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version > > 4.0 > > > > :-) > > > > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) > > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and > > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? > > (Obviously I prefer the latter) > > How version numbers correspond to project names? > > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) > > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? > > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) > > > > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee wrote: > >> +1 for Struts 2.0 > >> > >> Bob > >> > >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown wrote: > >> > > >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > >> > idea of > >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could > >> do this > >> > by > >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own > >> project and > >> > so > >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > >> > Action as > >> > Struts. > >> > > >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes > >> > Struts 2.0 > >> > 2. We rename the > >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep > >> the > >> > other > >> > top level directories the same > >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > >> > > >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of > >> which > >> > was my > >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so > >> we can > >> > move > >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > >> > > >> > Don > >> > > >> > - > >> > 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] > > > > > > > - > 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] - Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
In this case we are returning to a half-year old situation, that is, Struts 2 is a new crown holder of a single unified project. Consider the announcements like this: "Struts team is proud to announce immediate availability of Struts 2.0 as a next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " and then: "Struts team releases Struts 1.4, the next version of popular Struts framework. New features include ... " Things have not got simpler after divorce :) I suppose that having Struts 2 as the next version works for you. But I afraid that it does not work well for those who think about releasing new versions of 1.x codebase. So, maybe Win9x vs. WinNT is not that bad idea after all? And look at them now, united. Now not only former NT users wait for Vista, but former 9x users too :-)) On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single project, getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and perhaps some day, Struts 3.x releases. Don Michael Jouravlev wrote: > You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts > 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version > 4.0 > > :-) > > 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) > Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and > Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? > (Obviously I prefer the latter) > How version numbers correspond to project names? > Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) > Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? > (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) > > On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1 for Struts 2.0 >> >> Bob >> >> On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the >> > idea of >> > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could >> do this >> > by >> > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own >> project and >> > so >> > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts >> > Action as >> > Struts. >> > >> > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: >> > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes >> > Struts 2.0 >> > 2. We rename the >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion >> > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep >> the >> > other >> > top level directories the same >> > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 >> > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* >> > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts >> > >> > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of >> which >> > was my >> > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so >> we can >> > move >> > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. >> > >> > Don >> > >> > - >> > 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] > > - 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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
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 2¢/min or less.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I propose code names Velvet and Rubert. Any objections? Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mua-ha-ha :-)) +1 on renaming back. Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases. This had been suggested and discussed long ago but was rejected. Why codenames make sense: * Job search. SAF1 and SAF2... oh... I mean, Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x are different, required skills are different. Having codenames will seriously help to narrow the search to desired framework. * Perception. While SAF2 might be a leap forward indeed, it is a leap sideways as well. Maybe a little. It is different enough. Codenames will level the perception. Like Chicago and Cairo, for example. * It is just fun. See Ubuntu distros for example. Anyway, I liked Classic for 1.x, still like it :-) Or instead of typing 1.x and 2.x let's say Struts 1 and Struts 2, where Struts 2 can easily have 3.x or 4.x version numbers. Or just Struts Sucky and Struts Non-sucky. Or Struts and StrutsWork. On 6/28/06, Don Brown wrote: > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the idea > of > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this by > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and so > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts Action > as > Struts. > > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes > Struts 2.0 > 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other > top level directories the same > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which was > my > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can > move > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > > Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Did I miss something? :-) Perhaps the deliberations went on in private, because it's news to me!!! Congrats on Shale blossoming into its own project. Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the idea of Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this by including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and so I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts Action as Struts. The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes Struts 2.0 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which was my fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can move on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I think it is as simple as Struts 1.3, Struts 1.4, Struts 2.0, Struts 2.1, etc... The whole point of this proposal is to unify Struts as a single project, getting away from this concept of separately versioned "subprojects". There will be Struts 1.x releases, and there will be Struts 2.x releases, and perhaps some day, Struts 3.x releases. Don Michael Jouravlev wrote: You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version 4.0 :-) 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? (Obviously I prefer the latter) How version numbers correspond to project names? Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 for Struts 2.0 Bob On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > idea of > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this > by > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and > so > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > Action as > Struts. > > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes > Struts 2.0 > 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the > other > top level directories the same > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which > was my > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can > move > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > > Don > > - > 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
You mean, Struts 2.0 version 2.0, then Struts 2.0 version 2.1, Struts 2.0 version 2.2, ..., Struts 2.0 version 3.0, ..., Struts 2.0 version 4.0 :-) 2.0 is a version number, while we are choosing project names (Are we?) Do we treat Struts2 as the next version, or do we treat Struts and Struts2 as separate subprojects like Win9x/Me vs. WinNT/2K/XP ? (Obviously I prefer the latter) How version numbers correspond to project names? Can Struts 2 subproject have version number higher than 2.x? (I think yes) Can Struts [implied: 1] have version numbers higher than 1.x? (theoretically yes, but that would be bizzare) On 6/28/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 for Struts 2.0 Bob On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the > idea of > Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this > by > including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and > so > I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts > Action as > Struts. > > The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: > 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes > Struts 2.0 > 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion > directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the > other > top level directories the same > 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 > 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* > 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts > > Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which > was my > fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can > move > on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. > > Don > > - > 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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Ted Husted wrote: Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use repos/asf/struts/struts1 repos/asf/struts/struts2 Or repos/asf/struts/framework repos/asf/struts/framework2 I like struts1/struts2. Don -Ted. - 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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Big +1. I just wish we could have done it months ago when I (and others) said exactly the same thing. Oh well, better late then never. Frank Don Brown wrote: With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the idea of Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this by including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and so I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts Action as Struts. The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes Struts 2.0 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which was my fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can move on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com AIM: fzammetti Yahoo: fzammetti MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you think of... > > repos/asf/struts/struts > repos/asf/struts/struts2 Very true, I forgot that we have different directories for SAF1 and SAF2. The struts/struts is redundant, but I could live with that. But ViewVC might not :) It parses the tree in a strange way, and, depending on how it is configured, this namig pattern might lock out the "lower" struts. Though, there's no reason why we couldn't use repos/asf/struts/struts1 repos/asf/struts/struts2 Or repos/asf/struts/framework repos/asf/struts/framework2 -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
+1 for Struts 2.0 Bob On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the idea of Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this by including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and so I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts Action as Struts. The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes Struts 2.0 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/actionsubversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which was my fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can move on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
I'm against "official" code names. We have had enough confusion in Struts with different names meaning different things, and we shouldn't pile on more names. If folks want to off-hand use code names, that's fine, but to have them used in code or documentation is too far. Version 1 and 2 are simple enough. Don Ted Husted wrote: On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Wendy Smoak wrote: On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same What do you think of... repos/asf/struts/struts repos/asf/struts/struts2 Very true, I forgot that we have different directories for SAF1 and SAF2. The struts/struts is redundant, but I could live with that. Don ? I know it first glance it may look odd, but the first 'struts' is the project, and the second one is which framework, Struts [implied 1] or Struts 2. For example, see: http://cargo.codehaus.org/SVN Maven has repos/asf/maven/maven-1 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same What do you think of... repos/asf/struts/struts repos/asf/struts/struts2 ? I know it first glance it may look odd, but the first 'struts' is the project, and the second one is which framework, Struts [implied 1] or Struts 2. For example, see: http://cargo.codehaus.org/SVN Maven has repos/asf/maven/maven-1 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/ -- Wendy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rename Struts Action as Struts
Mua-ha-ha :-)) +1 on renaming back. Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases. This had been suggested and discussed long ago but was rejected. Why codenames make sense: * Job search. SAF1 and SAF2... oh... I mean, Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x are different, required skills are different. Having codenames will seriously help to narrow the search to desired framework. * Perception. While SAF2 might be a leap forward indeed, it is a leap sideways as well. Maybe a little. It is different enough. Codenames will level the perception. Like Chicago and Cairo, for example. * It is just fun. See Ubuntu distros for example. Anyway, I liked Classic for 1.x, still like it :-) Or instead of typing 1.x and 2.x let's say Struts 1 and Struts 2, where Struts 2 can easily have 3.x or 4.x version numbers. Or just Struts Sucky and Struts Non-sucky. Or Struts and StrutsWork. On 6/28/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With the departure of Struts Shale, I think it is time we return to the idea of Struts as a single, unified framework. While I had hoped we could do this by including Shale, everyone involved felt Shale deserved its own project and so I'm adjusting my original Struts 2.0 proposal to simply rename Struts Action as Struts. The ramifications of such a renaming up for discussion: 1. Struts Action 1.3 becomes Struts 1.3 and Struts Action 2.0 becomes Struts 2.0 2. We rename the https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/action subversion directory as https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/framework, keep the other top level directories the same 3. The org.apache.struts.action2 package becomes org.apache.struts2 4. action.* and struts-action.* configuration files become struts.* 5. The SAF acronym in the documentation would return to Struts Given all the product naming changes in the last few years (much of which was my fault, I admit), I'd like to have these changes decided on soon, so we can move on to getting Struts 2.0 out the door. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
