On Tue, November 1, 2005 1:21 pm, Ted Husted said:
>> That still allows you to have true sub-projects like Struts Ti, Struts
>> I wasn't aware of the points you made about Validator Ted... are you
>> saying that the Commons Validator has been altered in such a way that it
>> can no longer be separa
Well, in a perfect world, Shale and TI they would depend on Core ;-) But
who wants to create dependencies for dependency sake?
You're correct, now of course we already have the struts-core
(requestprocessor) subproject living next to shale, without dependency.
So we don't really change much in t
On 11/1/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first is simply the question of what is the name of the project at
> large? Is it still Apache Struts? And then everything else falls
> underneath it?
Yes. It's unlikely that the project name would change, since, as
Martin points out,
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is Shale part part of the six original subprojects, and thus part of
> Struts Original?
No, it is separate (but equal).
> I maintain that the new RequestProcessor and COR is not classic, but
> new. And that COR should be highlighted as suc
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Shale won't use it, and probably TI neither? Or is Shale the odd one
> out? If it is, I guess you could say Shale is weakening the stature of
> Struts.
FWIW, Shale's application controller uses exactly the same technology that
th
On Tue, November 1, 2005 12:36 pm, Martin Cooper said:
> At some point, we may need to distinguish more clearly between Struts, the
> ASF project, and Struts, the framework, and I think that's essentially
> what
> we're starting to see a need for in these threads. It's not really all
> that
> diffe
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I maintain that the new RequestProcessor and COR is not classic, but
> new. And that COR should be highlighted as such, new.
I wouldn't agree with this, if you look at Struts evolution
* In Struts 1.0 all the "request processing" was in
On 11/1/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, November 1, 2005 11:13 am, Michael Jouravlev said:
> > Struts Core sounds like a kernel for all Struts subprojects, while
> > AFAIK Shale and Ti do not depend on it. So, in a way this name is
> > misleading. Not that I can suggest
So I guess Struts Core is not Core after all. If that's the case, too
bad for all the good work in the request processor.
Shale won't use it, and probably TI neither? Or is Shale the odd one
out? If it is, I guess you could say Shale is weakening the stature of
Struts.
I understand, but I se
+1
Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
+1
Wolfgang Gehner
Ted Husted wrote:
On 11/1/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't been a fan of the naming convention being introduced, and
I've
said so in the past. But, as Ted points out in another post, no one,
including me, offered
On Tue, November 1, 2005 11:13 am, Michael Jouravlev said:
> Struts Core sounds like a kernel for all Struts subprojects, while
> AFAIK Shale and Ti do not depend on it. So, in a way this name is
> misleading. Not that I can suggest something better ;-)
I think that's a fair point, although I thin
On Tue, November 1, 2005 11:02 am, Ted Husted said:
> To summarize,
>
> * Instead of having a Struts Classic distribution, we could have a
> "struts-core-library" distribution instead, that could also include
> other Core compatiblity extensions, like Struts Flow and Struts
> Scripting. If we did,
On 11/1/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Instead of having a Struts Classic distribution, we could have a
> "struts-core-library" distribution instead, that could also include
> other Core compatiblity extensions, like Struts Flow and Struts
> Scripting. If we did, then "Struts Classic
+1
Wolfgang Gehner
Ted Husted wrote:
On 11/1/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't been a fan of the naming convention being introduced, and I've
said so in the past. But, as Ted points out in another post, no one,
including me, offered any better suggestions either,
On 11/1/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't been a fan of the naming convention being introduced, and I've
> said so in the past. But, as Ted points out in another post, no one,
> including me, offered any better suggestions either, so it was just
> pointless whining. Let
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
>
> I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects,
> too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than a
> minor point release. We are
I haven't been a fan of the naming convention being introduced, and I've
said so in the past. But, as Ted points out in another post, no one,
including me, offered any better suggestions either, so it was just
pointless whining. Let me try and change to something more
constructive...
Why not tak
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So let me formally propose that Struts point releases as of 1.3
> including be called Struts CORE.
I think the point that people are missing is that Struts Classic is
not a product, it's a distribution of products. Struts Core is one
product
Ted,
Another trigger might be a revolutionary change to the feature set. If
we did everything that's already on the 1.3 to 1.5 roadmap, I could
see going to 2.x then.
To me chains.xml, decompose and adapt the request processor and ability
to use Commands instead of Actions is a revolution. G
On 11/1/05, Wolfgang Gehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0.
The thinking has been that so long as each release is backwardly
compatible with the last, then there is no reason to increment the
major version number.
A couple of things that might trigger incrementing th
That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be
understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE
strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's a
very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as
"Chain Of REsponsibil
As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that
there are many cells of people working on different editions
of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc.
Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups
should come together to discuss if they have commons.
Do you think th
I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects,
too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than a
minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from the new flexibility
this *major new fe
23 matches
Mail list logo
