Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

The answer, in a more serious vein, Laurie, is that it doesn't make sense for Struts to use the same name for itself and other tag-a-long wannabees. Dump them into research and development and leave them to fend for themselves on their own merits, which are suspect. Then, there will be no problem.

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

Bingo! The palace revolt continues! On 11/3/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Struts project used to have a single deliverable/artifact, which was > Struts, the product. Using the same name for both made sense then. Now > that the Struts project has multiple deliverables/artifac

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

What a concept. But, Frank, this leaves no room for things like Struts JSF, etc. If Struts is just Struts, what will the people who want it to be non-Struts do? On 11/3/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One option I've said a couple of times that isn't on that list and seems > l

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

He, he. Michael Jouravlev wrote: Struts Original Struts Unoriginal Struts Legacy Struts Impreza -- thx, .V Your Roomity Broadband Community cell: 917 825 3035 in DFW email: netsql at roomity.com --

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

On 11/3/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really don't understand why there would be any desire or need to > change from the name in use now. I would tend to agree. The name in use now for a binary distribution of relevant JARs is "Library". * http://struts.apache.org/download.

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

The Struts project used to have a single deliverable/artifact, which was Struts, the product. Using the same name for both made sense then. Now that the Struts project has multiple deliverables/artifacts, they obviously need different names. It just happens that many of the deliverables are sub

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

On 11/4/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/3/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One option I've said a couple of times that isn't on that list and seems > > like it isn't getting due consideration: "STRUTS"! > > > > I really don't understand why there would b

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

Martin Cooper wrote: +1. I agree with all of what Frank says here. That's it, I'm done, I never need to post again! LOL (Gosh, can I say that? This is unprecedented! ;) This is tantamount to pitching three no-hitters in a row... certainly at least as hard to believe :) LMAO -- Martin Co

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

On 11/3/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One option I've said a couple of times that isn't on that list and seems > like it isn't getting due consideration: "STRUTS"! > > I really don't understand why there would be any desire or need to > change from the name in use now. As Lau

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

On 11/3/05, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/3/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > BTW, was "Struts > > Distribution" voted down already, because I thought that was the most > > intuitive > > name for what we are trying to do. > > IIRC it was Martin's suggestion, I think i

Re: Struts 1.3 Naming

One option I've said a couple of times that isn't on that list and seems like it isn't getting due consideration: "STRUTS"! I really don't understand why there would be any desire or need to change from the name in use now. As Laurie quite coherently stated earlier today, there is already an