See
* http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/STR-2898
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
(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,
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
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
*
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
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.
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
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
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
+1
-
Posted via Jive Forums
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=35827messageID=70400#70400
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
+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
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
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
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
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...
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
