If Steve, or anyone else, would like to start putting together a roadmap for Struts 1.1, 1.2, and 1.2+ (formerly 1.1+), I'll be happy to post it on the site and maintain it. It doesn't have too be XML, I can take it off the list if that's what it takes.
-T. 10/16/2002 4:47:29 PM, "Byrne, Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would think that before Ted or anyone can answer the question of >whether to wait until 1.2, a clear roadmap of near term future releases, >including features and functionality lists for each release, be >published. Right now, saying that it's ok to wait until 1.2 is pretty >much meaningless without a time estimate based on the amount of content >going into 1.2 (or even a definition of what 1.2 is). > >When I talked with Craig a few months back, he was thinking that the >next release of Struts would be focused on incorporating JSF related >functionality; I don't know if that's still the case. If it is, that >would make for a much more significantly challenging release, and thus >would extend the time that people would have to wait for a fully working >tiles/validator version of Struts. > >Steve > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 1:34 PM >> To: Struts Developers List >> Subject: Re: Tiles Refactorings for 1.1 compatability >> >> >> 10/16/2002 4:03:01 PM, "V. Cekvenich" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >Can you wait till 1.2 Ted? >> >> All that I'm saying is that we should support specifying a >> list of struts-config files, as we do for the >> validator and tiles configs. This way people could split up >> the config files without buying into modules. Craig >> wanted to pursue modules to support URI-independance, but now >> that we done that I think we should support the >> obvious solution too. >> >> The only other thing I meant to say is that if we're going to >> call Tiles 1.1 compliant, it should have the same >> contextRelative property we see on the ActionForward. I >> didn't mean to say that there should be a gobal Tiles >> config or anything like that. >> >> In both cases, I'm just saying we should consistently >> complete what we started. Beta are for finding oversights >> and inconsistencies as well as malfunctions. >> >> But if everyone is on board for cutting a quick 1.2 release >> to catch issues we are postponing now, I'm willing >> to play along (again). >> >> My only concern is that post 1.1, we will also want to talk >> about things like servlet 2.3 support. My concern is >> that those discussions might become an excuse to postpone >> finishing what we (only) started here. But with more >> committers on board, perhaps we can afford to work on more >> than one code stream now. >> >> -Ted. >> >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
