On 12/16/05, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This sounds familiar :) > > I definitely would recommend changing the slides and title of the > presentation. Just yesterday I ran in to this: > > > http://javasymposium.techtarget.com/html/det_descriptions.htm#McClanahanShale > > Changing the title to something like "Shale: the Struts Component > Framework" would certainly clear this up. We need to be firm and clear > on the idea that Struts has many sub-projects, and two major > frameworks: an Action framework and a Component framework.
Based on your comments at the BOF, I submitted a request to change that title (which had been submitted even before the ApacheCon talk :-). Patrick Craig On 12/16/05, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With some people like Craig McClanahan delivering talks at significant > > conferences entitled with contrary ideas like "Is Shale the next > Struts", > > you might excuse people for thinking that this "subproject" ruse is > > baloney. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday and I have read > all > > about the Trojan Horse. > > > > On 12/15/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > By the way, the original decision to incorporate Shale as a subproject > > > occurred nearly 11 months ago: > > > > > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=110651419515521&w=2 > > > > > > -- Paul > > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
