Actually, I take part of that back. We can't refactor 1.0.1 for multiple servlets, since that would be new functionality. But I can still see doing this in phases, with a release number in between.
Ted Husted wrote: > > I could be convinced that we can refactor 1.0.x for multiple servlets, > as you originally described, and continue the work in 1.1 (more likely > 1.2) to switch over everything over to a JavaBean. In terms of > progressive refinement, it may make the most sense to expose the > ActionServlet first, and then replace that object with a JavaBean. I'd > just like to see use set that course first. > > Generally, the surest thing is to post a patch or code that someone can > easily commit. The best place to submit it is Bugzilla where it won't > get lost. After creating the initial issue, you can go back and attach a > file. > > Typically, a committer will make some change to the code on its way to > the CVS, but just as often not. The committers are volunteers and not > under any obligation to apply patches or figure things out, so the > easiest things that make the most sense tend to get done first. So, we > are not simply gatekeepers, we share the responsibility for > decision-making. > > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html > > If over a period of time (usually at least six months), a developer > submits a series of significant patches or new classes that are easy to > apply or commit, or they start hosting their own ready-to-download > extensions (as Cedric, David, and Oleg have all done), then one of us > will eventually smell the coffee, nominate them to be a committer, and > eliminate the middleman. > > -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. > -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services. > -- Tel +1 716 737-3463 > -- http://www.husted.com/struts/ > > Tim W Wilson wrote: > > > > >>I'm just thinking that many of the components that we use may have wider > > user, and we should avoid binding things to the ActionServlet class. << > > > > I thought you all might say something like this and of course I agree. My > > intent is attempting to be pragmatic by providing a simple fix that will > > work within the 1.0.x stream. I just seems that these other good ideas may > > be more appropriate for the 1.1 stream; but maybe not. Since there seem to > > be agreement on the idea of a "resource" interface how does an actual > > design get agreed upon to be implemented or do people just submit random > > implementations to be figured out by committers? > > > > Tim W Wilson > > Eclipse WSED Architecture & Development > > internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (919) 254-0029 (TL 444-0029) > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services. -- Tel +1 716 737-3463 -- http://www.husted.com/struts/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
