2011/12/1 Paul Benedict :
> I've been silently following this thread :-) Here's my take...
;-)
> It would be inappropriate to rename packages in a minor version bump. I
> just think that defeats expectations for normal upgrades since minor point
> upgrades should be compatible with current code.
I've been silently following this thread :-) Here's my take...
It would be inappropriate to rename packages in a minor version bump. I
just think that defeats expectations for normal upgrades since minor point
upgrades should be compatible with current code. On the other hand, moving
to version 3
+1 for René's version schema.
But should we really rename the packages to org.apache.struts3?
This breaks definitifly all external plugins.
We should not put the Version Numer into the package names.
What is the Brand of Struts 3? Struts?
So we should use org.apache.struts again for the package
To start with something
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/Struts3Planning
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
-
To unsubscribe
2011/11/29 Dave Newton :
> I was thinking about S3 over the weekend. (Hmm, my habit of abbreviating S2
> hits a snag with S3) and had a few thoughts.
I would like to add one more thing, conversion mechanism of primitive
types (and wrappers) - eg. double conversion doesn't respect Locale
settings
2011/11/29 Dave Newton :
> P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
> P2. Complete XWork subsumption.
Rename packages or something more ? Because I was planning to rename
packages before releasing 2.3.x, maybe even right now ;-)
> S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on q
I agree with Dave's points as well as the need to discuss type conversion
going forward.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Dave Newton wrote:
> +1, I'm good with branching now.
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
> wrote:
> > I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to common
+1, I'm good with branching now.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
wrote:
> I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to commons version (
> http://commons.apache.org/ognl/)
> So, what about if we add a new 3.x branch and start to put our effort in
> this new one?
>
> Twitter
I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to commons version (
http://commons.apache.org/ognl/)
So, what about if we add a new 3.x branch and start to put our effort in
this new one?
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin
> You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
> with current Guice. Do I understand correctly?
Yep. I'm also unsure of the amount of work required--I'm trying to dig
in to it along with a related side project and just don't know yet.
> Do you mean change the package na
Hi Dave,
could we go into more depth?
>
> P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
>
You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
with current Guice.
Do I understand correctly?
If yes, I'd vote for it, though at the moment I have no idea how much hard
could
I was thinking about S3 over the weekend. (Hmm, my habit of abbreviating S2
hits a snag with S3) and had a few thoughts.
Two main things for me, and one secondary.
P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
P2. Complete XWork subsumption.
S1. Refactorings for further extensibility base
I think that Struts 3 deserves a deep analysis, we should enforce the
concept that S3 is a new version based on S2, otherwise we will run the
risk of mislead the struts users.
Considering we are going to give a new style to the website, I think this
is a good chance to take this aspect into consid
2011/11/29 Rene Gielen :
> While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the proposed
> versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
> see it as
>
> 3.0.0
> 3.0.1
> 3.0.2 (Security
> While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> hasn't come to any conclusion yet,
I agree, I had the same feeling
>I strongly disagree with the proposed
> versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
> see it as
>
> 3.0.0
> 3.0.1
> 3.0.2 (
While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the proposed
versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
see it as
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack rel
2011/11/29 Maurizio Cucchiara :
> Just for curiosity why do we need 4 numbers and not just 3?
To follow MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH scheme, but we can stick with
3 numbers and the fourth (the first one) will always be equal to 3.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Wa
Just for curiosity why do we need 4 numbers and not just 3?
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart :
> 2011/11/29 Philip Lup
2011/11/29 Philip Luppens :
> Ack, my apologies. I thought we were talking about Struts 3, whereas it
> really would have been Struts 2 v 3.0. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, that's confuse me as well - Struts 2 ver. 3.0.0.1 :/
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Wa
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart
> 2011/11/29 Philip Luppens :
> > Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
> > talking about a Struts 3?
>
> Why not ? Preparing a plan is always good (we don't have to follow it ;-) )
>
>
Ack, my apologies. I thought we were talking about S
2011/11/29 Philip Luppens :
> Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
> talking about a Struts 3?
Why not ? Preparing a plan is always good (we don't have to follow it ;-) )
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Co
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart
> Struts 3 should be version as follow:
> - 3.0.0.1
> - 3.0.1.1
> - 3.1.0.1
> -
>
> ?
>
>
> Kind regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
>
>
Struts 3 should be version as follow:
- 3.0.0.1
- 3.0.1.1
- 3.1.0.1
-
?
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
what it is today. Please continue the good work!
>
> Best,
>
> @jeffblack360
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Cooper
> To: Struts Developers List
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Rene
to everyone involved in making the
Struts brand what it is today. Please continue the good work!
Best,
@jeffblack360
From: Martin Cooper
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
On Tue, Oct 18, 2
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Rene Gielen wrote:
> Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart:
>> 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen :
>>> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want
>>> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call
>>> it "Struts 3". But
Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart:
> 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen :
>> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want
>> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call
>> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other
>> problem
2011/10/18 Rene Gielen :
> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want
> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call
> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other
> problems. Is a Struts 2 book good for learning Struts 3
nobody.
2011-10-18
hiyoucai
发件人: Łukasz Lenart
发送时间: 2011-10-18 18:35
主 题: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
收件人: Struts Developers List
2011/10/18 Maurizio Cucchiara :
> BTW, I think It might be interesting to know how many users are still
> using Struts 1.
A lot, banks are the to
2011/10/18 Maurizio Cucchiara :
> BTW, I think It might be interesting to know how many users are still
> using Struts 1.
A lot, banks are the top most users ;-)
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
--
Well, the Struts NG reference in my mail was meant to recall our naming
discussions when the merger between Struts and WebWork took place. We
decided against it, and I think it's too late now to go that way - what
came out as Struts 2 was actually the "Next Generation", something
breaking - now we'
Definitely +1 for the naming convention
> I don't know if "Struts NG" is the right name for the new brand but we should
> not use a version number in the brand.
I agree with Johannes, this time we should strongly consider to keep
away the version number from the brand.
Honestly, I am afraid that N
I agree to Łukasz we should follow the MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH scheme,
because this is what the users understand and expect.
But maybe we should also think about a new Brand like Struts NG like
suggested by Rene.
Because many developers and media associate with the Brand Struts the old
Stru
That would be a good idea to follow MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH
approach, it's clear and reasonable for the users and for us. I would
say, let release 2.3.x and start thinking about 3.x, what should be
in, what out and so on.
Struts NG isn't a good name for me, Struts NG 3, Struts NG 4, ...
Stru
After getting things a bit sorted out on my side, it looks like is not
exactly a need to deprecate 2.1.x, since it is not marked as a
maintained branch anywhere - especially on the download page.
As for 2.0.x, the reason why it is still marked as a maintained branch
and "best available" release is
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
wrote:
> Hi guys,
> As René pointed out (see http://s.apache.org/2hn) we should seriously
> take into consideration to deprecate 2.1.x version.
> Another thing that I have just noticed is about the full releases
> present on the download page (h
36 matches
Mail list logo
