>
> As for Wes having to fix some stuff to make it work, that's a question of
> how long it's been not working properly, and how many people have needed an
> update during that period. That nobody else happened to report an issue
> during that timeframe says nothing about how many people out there
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Don Brown wrote:
>
>> By forking XWork, we can a) bring core Struts 2 code into the project
>> where it belongs and b) still leave it available for other users in
>> OpenSymphony.
>>
>>
> If you fork XWork, i
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Don Brown wrote:
> By forking XWork, we can a) bring core Struts 2 code into the project
> where it belongs and b) still leave it available for other users in
> OpenSymphony.
>
>
If you fork XWork, it obviously won't be XWork anymore. If that's what you
want to d
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> OK, here's a question that's been on my mind for a while. Why is it that,
> for almost every S2 release, we need to make changes to something as core as
> XWork? Why isn't XWork stable enough by now that we don't have to be
> changing it all t
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> Although I agree in theory, looking at it from a practical point of
> view, that wouldn't make sense. Nobody seems to be interested in using
> XWork outside Struts(yes, yes except that dude), and the proof is that
> it didn't actually work
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > So, assuming the XWork-consuming developer is not using Maven (sorry,
> Wendy,
> > but that's still most of the world ;), are we planning on providing
> separate
> > download link
Although I agree in theory, looking at it from a practical point of
view, that wouldn't make sense. Nobody seems to be interested in using
XWork outside Struts(yes, yes except that dude), and the proof is that
it didn't actually work until the other day. Why would we try to
support something for wh
To say it has no value outside of Struts, I believe, downplays its ability
to be an independent framework / dependency injection container. I am not
for binding it to Struts. I would vote for being it's own independent Maven
module or vote for it to join Apache Commons.
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:3
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Don Brown wrote:
> Well, it shouldn't be in the struts2-core jar, but it should be in the
> main Struts project as something like struts2-xwork.jar. There is
> little value trying to bring it in as a new subproject with its own
> release cycle
That's what I meant.
Well, it shouldn't be in the struts2-core jar, but it should be in the
main Struts project as something like struts2-xwork.jar. There is
little value trying to bring it in as a new subproject with its own
release cycle.
I really don't understand the resistance to completely getting rid of
xwork.
I think we have a consensus on bringing XWork in, but we still have to
get to an agreement on where it will actually land (inside core vs its
own artifact), can we get the IP clearing process rolling?
musachy
-
To unsubscribe, e-
> -Original Message-
> From: paulus.benedic...@gmail.com
> [mailto:paulus.benedic...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 16:29
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: Let's kill xwork (was Re: 2.1.8 release?)
>
> If XWork can remain as an independe
If XWork can remain as an independent Maven project, that's good enough for
me. I don't care if it gets built only when Struts gets built. I just hope
we don't import Struts into XWork. So I am +1 with Musachy.
Paul
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> So, assuming the XWork-consuming developer is not using Maven (sorry, Wendy,
> but that's still most of the world ;), are we planning on providing separate
> download links on our web site for *pieces* of our releases, then? Or are we
> going
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > If we bring it here and embed it within the Struts 2 core, then it will
> > become part of the Struts 2 release, but will no longer be available as
> an
> > independent entity. This m
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> If we bring it here and embed it within the Struts 2 core, then it will
> become part of the Struts 2 release, but will no longer be available as an
> independent entity. This means it probably will not be usable outside of
> Struts 2, will n
ok the json plugin has landed in trunk.
musachy
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Rene Gielen wrote:
> +1
>
> Musachy Barroso schrieb:
>> I think the JSON plugin is ready to be moved to trunk, here is my +1.
>>
>>
>> musachy
>
> --
> René Gielen
> IT-Neering.net
> Saarstrasse 100, 52062 Aachen, Ge
The JSP plugin can now serve JSPs from inside OSGi bundles (using our
OSGi plugin). I am not sure how useless this is, but it is fun.
musachy
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
-
To unsubscribe, e-mai
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Also, are all of the existing XWork committers already Struts committers? If
> not, what do we plan to do about that?
I haven't checked all the committers, but the active committers are. I
think that making xwork a subproject won't fix the o
Personally, I feel that struts top to bottom should be web centric and
not try to abstract out JEE. This makes life cumbersome and difficult
in many cases. Often this also leads to hacking interfaces or writing
tricky new semantics on top of more general interfaces in order to get
access to
If we bring XWork here and it becomes its own subproject, it will have its
own release cycle. This will allow people to use XWork independently of
Struts, but it means there is still a separate release cycle, independent of
the Struts 2 release cycle. Thus we're in pretty much the same situation as
Go ahead with it, thanks for volunteering.
musachy
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Rene Gielen wrote:
> Still no objections so far. I would volunteer to help with IP clearance
>
> Musachy Barroso schrieb:
>> Just to recap on this (no, I won't let this go stale ;) ), we have a
>> consensus on usi
+1
Musachy Barroso schrieb:
> I think the JSON plugin is ready to be moved to trunk, here is my +1.
>
>
> musachy
--
René Gielen
IT-Neering.net
Saarstrasse 100, 52062 Aachen, Germany
Tel: +49-(0)241-4010770
Fax: +49-(0)241-4010771
Cel: +49-(0)177-3194448
http://twitter.com/rgielen
---
Still no objections so far. I would volunteer to help with IP clearance
Musachy Barroso schrieb:
> Just to recap on this (no, I won't let this go stale ;) ), we have a
> consensus on using JQuery as the underlying framework for the ajax
> tags, and we agree that we could use this project. Is there
+1 for moving XW over as a S2 subproject.
Not sure if I'd come dressed in black to that funeral ... :)
Don Brown schrieb:
> XWork was left at OpenSymphony, because at the time, there were a
> number of WebWork developers still around and we wanted to continue to
> work together. Today, WebWork ac
(non-committer's non-binding) +1
it would make configuration of ajax projects a bit simpler
2009/8/6 Wes Wannemacher
> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 09:54:41 pm Musachy Barroso wrote:
> > Although I understand it is quite used, I am not sure why you want it
> > in core, having it as plugin works
26 matches
Mail list logo
