2011/11/29 Frans Thamura :
> s2 new lead ;)
>
> hehehe :)
Here you have, something to start with ;-)
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW/fixforversion/12319158
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:
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/
>
>
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
> 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 :
> 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
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
Hello all,
here is a new draft:
http://code.grobmeier.de/struts-draft-v3/
Here are the CHANGES (I will try to make this e-mail as short as possible
but refer to some items of Martins post below):
* Dave said, the hero-unit font is huge and Martin complained on the hero
unit as to big in total. I
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
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
> 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 (
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
+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 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
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
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
Let's talk about the name; I'm not sure it needs to be explicitly
xwork2 any more.
I might consider something like o.a.s2.core or something like that.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Lukasz Lenart (Created) (JIRA)
wrote:
> Rename org.opensymphony.xwork2 to org.apache.struts2.xwork2
> --
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 :
> Let's talk about the name; I'm not sure it needs to be explicitly
> xwork2 any more.
>
> I might consider something like o.a.s2.core or something like that.
XWork should stay as a separated project, maybe someday a top project
and maybe we should rename what we have righ
Then we shouldn't be merging it into the S2 code base to begin with, IMO.
Moving it to a top-level project would require incubation etc., I'm
not convinced it's worth it for a component lightly-used outside of
S2.
Another alternative would be to do the restructuring internal to S2,
keeping it sep
2011/11/29 Dave Newton :
> Then we shouldn't be merging it into the S2 code base to begin with, IMO.
>
> Moving it to a top-level project would require incubation etc., I'm
> not convinced it's worth it for a component lightly-used outside of
> S2.
I just remember discussion about leaving XWork al
As long as it can be referenced as an individual component, I'm not
super-concerned about what it's called.
I agree we need to preserve its utility outside of web-related things,
though. (I actually *did* use it for a non-web thing once.)
Dave
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart :
> 2011/11/29 Dave Newton
2011/11/29 Dave Newton :
> As long as it can be referenced as an individual component, I'm not
> super-concerned about what it's called.
I just wanna clean up what's left after OpenSymphony, as we had the
same issue with DTDs that were pointing to the OpenSymphony site.
> I agree we need to prese
I am out of the office until 12/05/2011.
Out from 30Nov to 2Dec. Please contact Mustansir Ali/Sandeep Katoch for any
RSA related technical queries.
regards,
Pavan
Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: Deprecate 2.1
version" sent on 30/11/11 1:23:24.
This is the only notifi
org.apache.struts2.xwork; keep it a separate JAR, but part of the S2
project (as it currently is).
Since renaming the package is a breaking change, do we want to make any
other API changes to XWork now or are we fine with just changing the
package now and making (potential) API changes later?
201
2011/11/30 Steven Benitez :
> org.apache.struts2.xwork; keep it a separate JAR, but part of the S2 project
> (as it currently is).
Yes, it'll remain as is.
> Since renaming the package is a breaking change, do we want to make any
> other API changes to XWork now or are we fine with just changing
31 matches
Mail list logo
