On 1/11/06, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just from my experience, I'd prefer if we didn't use the "2"
> anywhere. We used "WebWork2" for a while and it really confused
> things and broke up the brand. We've had much better success ever
> since we actively eliminated "WebWork2" in
> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
>
>
> On 1/11/06, netsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
> > correcting them.
>
> Because, very shortly, we will be adopting the WebWork code bas
On 1/11/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using "CoR", or some variant of it, in the name is a very bad idea, IMHO,
> because that is a reflection of the *implementation* of the framework, not
> the style of it.
+1.
We talked about "Core" for a while, but that was Core as in "kernal"
On 1/10/06, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
> "Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
> Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
> wrote an article about it
Just from my experience, I'd prefer if we didn't use the "2"
anywhere. We used "WebWork2" for a while and it really confused
things and broke up the brand. We've had much better success ever
since we actively eliminated "WebWork2" in favor of just "WebWork".
Some day there may be a 2.1 and
On 1/11/06, netsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
> correcting them.
Because, very shortly, we will be adopting the WebWork code base as
Struts Action 2.x, and, at the same time marching toward a stable
release of Struts Action 1.3.
On 1/11/06, netsql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
> correcting them.
Right. Ford Motor Co. has the following brands: Mercury, Lincoln
and... Ford (don't get started with Jaguar, Volvo or Mazda).
--
And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
correcting them.
.V
James Mitchell wrote:
Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
* [SAF 2.x]
or
James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
"Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts
CORe a while ag
On 1/10/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with
> Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
> see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case
> [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
> rea
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> > (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> > 2.0/WW/Ti .
>
> There has to be _some_ way to
Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
really matters.
Don
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 1/10/06, Michael
On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> 2.0/WW/Ti .
There has to be _some_ way to separate the questions, otherwise every
answer is going to star
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> > subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> > framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
> >
> > (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums
> in
> > CNet over a 300 baud moden
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action
> And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
>
Now, that sounds like a new "you might be a geek" category :-)
> -Ted.
>
>
>
> --
> HTH, Ted.
> http://www.husted.com/poe/
>
> --
On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
> name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
> parts. Too little too late...
I would have to agree that, much like Democracy, "Action is the worst
choice of a name -- excep
On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
>
> (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
> CNet over a 300 baud moden via CGTerm, and I was happy to have it!)
Though, I wasn't glad
I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
[Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
"Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
then cancelled before s
On Tue, January 10, 2006 9:18 am, Ted Husted said:
> Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
(You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
C
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
> or
> * [Action 2.x
Ted Husted asked
>
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a
> standard subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the
> Struts Shale framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the
> other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action 2.x]
I'd say [Action
Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
We're forever putting tag
I'm not sure this is a good idea.
By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say
hi guys. back! :)
just [Action] ?
riyaz
* [SAF 2.x]
or
* [Action 2.x]
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Struts Action Framework.
>
> I figured that out.
>
> > Is that what Struts is now being called?
> >
> >
> > That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
> > code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
