Ted Husted wrote:
On 5/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The current versioning/naming system will force them, because it does
not make distinction between Classic and WebWork. Most users and/or
their managers know that higher version number means newer and better
product. Which is why I preferred "Classic" name for 1.x codebase. I
think that before 2.0 and 1.3 are released, it is still possible to
reconsider the names. That is, if 1.3 is still considered worth
working on.
Evidentally, Don, Wendy, Martin, James, and I all feel that 1.3 is a
worthwhile endeavor, since we all voted to support the Struts Action
1.3.2 beta release. A lot of work went into 1.3.x, and much of it
happened long after 2.0 was announced.
I have a couple of comments to make about this.
First of all, presumably the whole motivation of this "merger" is that
you could unite your energies on a common framework. If there is still
ongoing work on 2 different frameworks, it kind of belies the whole
point of the merger, doesn't it?
Now, my understanding of the point that Michael Jouravlev was making is
that, once you label something as version n+1 of something, you are
basically putting out the message that version n is superseded.
Typically, verseion n+1 of a product supersedes version n. I may be an
excessively simple-minded guy, but if I hit a website and can download
FooBar version 1, or FooBar version 2, I guess I'll go with version 2. I
will also just assume that all new development is on version 2, not
version 1.
What would a casual observer make of this? You "merge" with a competing
framework in order to combine your efforts (i.e. not disperse your
efforts on 2 different products as before) and you label Webwork as
Struts Action 2 when the existing product is version 1. I put it to you
that, on the basis of this, nobody with common sense would count on any
further development of Struts 1.x taking place. People will just
naturally draw the conclusion that Struts 1.x development is being
abandoned. If it was not your intent for people to think that, then you
chose a very strange product naming strategy.
Now, even if, contrary to all outward appearances, this conclusion is
wrong, and you guys really do intend to further develop Struts 1.x, how
much credibility do you have on this as things stand?
Throughout most of the past 4 years, Struts 1.x was the only thing
called Struts and was presumably the only real focus of development of
Struts committers. However, development stagnated. To tell people that
there is going to be any significant development on that codebase now,
when it is competing for attention with another codebase (labelled
version 2 of same (!)) is asking people to believe quite a bit.
But in any case, if whatever project management practices that were
followed over the last few years continue to be followed without
considering any changes at all, why should a rational person expect
results any different than what there has been over the past few years?
This would be a valid question IMO even if there was no merger with
Webwork and no Shale.
If you continue with the exact same approach, which has yielded rather
poor results, and besides that, you don't bring in new people to work on
Struts 1.x, why should one expect anything much to come out of it?
My sense of things is that you should either just forthrightly tell
people that Struts 1.x development is being abandoned. Or, if it isn't,
you should immediately offer to bring in people who are interested in
working on it. Obviously Frank Zammetti is interested. I suspect that
Phil Zoio would be interested. Probably other people too.
But as things are, the contradictory message you are emitting just seems
outrageous. To prevent people who are able and willing to work on Struts
1.x from getting actively involved, and all the while emit confused
messages claiming that Struts 1.x is not really being abandoned, surely
this is a bit much for even people around here to swallow, isn't it?
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
