Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
snip Either it could be developed with compatibility to existing JDK versions and keep everyone happy. or go with JDK 1.5 and my preferernce would be to go to JDK 1.5 and use all those favorite-new-features. In the past we have required the Java version that the Servlet spec required. Why would we want to require 1.5 when Servlet 2.4 requires 1.4? IMO, it's simpler and more consistent to follow the Servlet spec with regards to Java version. David __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:29:59 -0700 (PDT), David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Either it could be developed with compatibility to existing JDK versions and keep everyone happy. or go with JDK 1.5 and my preferernce would be to go to JDK 1.5 and use all those favorite-new-features. In the past we have required the Java version that the Servlet spec required. Why would we want to require 1.5 when Servlet 2.4 requires 1.4? IMO, it's simpler and more consistent to follow the Servlet spec with regards to Java version. It would be easier to be consistent with the specs if *they* were consistent :-). Servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 require JDK 1.4 if you're in a J2EE 1.4 container (indirectly, because it's the J2EE spec that says this). For standalone web containers, the minimum platform is JDK 1.3. It's not just open source projects that have spirited discussions about when to switch :-). David Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Wow, didn't know about that one - quite interesting. What about pushing it out to the wiki? I can probably do it (and learn some wiki stuff) if Ted or anyone else doesn't mind. \Anders -Original Message- From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2. september 2004 21:33 To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) You can also look at the whiteboard initially setup by Ted in contrib/struts-jericho/README.txt -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Wow, didn't know about that one - quite interesting. What about pushing it out to the wiki? I can probably do it (and learn some wiki stuff) if Ted or anyone else doesn't mind. \Anders -Original Message- From: James Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2. september 2004 21:33 To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) You can also look at the whiteboard initially setup by Ted in contrib/struts-jericho/README.txt -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum. It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the committers have revolve around more recent versions of the specs. I would think that this logic could also be applied to potential contributors who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to figure out how to get involved. Newer technoloy yeilds new ideas and new contributions. Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) \Anders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum. It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the committers have revolve around more recent versions of the specs. I would think that this logic could also be applied to potential contributors who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to figure out how to get involved. Newer technoloy yeilds new ideas and new contributions. Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) \Anders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
You can also look at the whiteboard initially setup by Ted in contrib/struts-jericho/README.txt -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
As far as the struts roadmap for 2.x I would say that it is fairly vague for anyone setting out to develop an initial codebase. It mentions supporting JSF, it talks about portlets, and many other things. But it talks about these things vaguely as if they were 5 years off. I am just saying that if someone is going to begin a 2.x development there should be some serious discussion about what it should look like. I would say a wiki on this would be great. Maybe StrutsNewVersion or something. I don't do much with the wiki, can I just create a new page if I'm registered on it? On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:33:15 +0100, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Yes -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) As far as the struts roadmap for 2.x I would say that it is fairly vague for anyone setting out to develop an initial codebase. It mentions supporting JSF, it talks about portlets, and many other things. But it talks about these things vaguely as if they were 5 years off. I am just saying that if someone is going to begin a 2.x development there should be some serious discussion about what it should look like. I would say a wiki on this would be great. Maybe StrutsNewVersion or something. I don't do much with the wiki, can I just create a new page if I'm registered on it? On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:33:15 +0100, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Michael Rasmussen wrote: As far as the struts roadmap for 2.x I would say that it is fairly vague for anyone setting out to develop an initial codebase. Have you not looked at the initial code base of the Struts chain already in CVS? .V It mentions supporting JSF, it talks about portlets, and many other things. But it talks about these things vaguely as if they were 5 years off. I am just saying that if someone is going to begin a 2.x development there should be some serious discussion about what it should look like. I would say a wiki on this would be great. Maybe StrutsNewVersion or something. I don't do much with the wiki, can I just create a new page if I'm registered on it? On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:33:15 +0100, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote: Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) The best part is that we can have our cake and eat it too :) Those with itches for Servlet 2.4/JSP 2.0/J2SE 5.0 can begin work on Struts 2.x, while others continue to maintain and enhance Struts 1.x. Many projects operate in a mode like this, including Apache HTTPD and Tomcat. We just need someone to step up and say, OK, here's some starter code for Struts 2.x, let's have at it. Meanwhile, those interested in the Struts 1.x base can maintain the status quo. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) http://www.portalvu.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
One proposal that's a bit more concrete is Ted's struts-jericho contrib; it contains a proposed DTD which shows how the classes could be organized. Also, there's been some discussion on Struts 2 ideas before: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-devw=2r=1s=Struts+2.0+Ideas+q=b - Hubert On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:52:37 -0500, Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as the struts roadmap for 2.x I would say that it is fairly vague for anyone setting out to develop an initial codebase. It mentions supporting JSF, it talks about portlets, and many other things. But it talks about these things vaguely as if they were 5 years off. I am just saying that if someone is going to begin a 2.x development there should be some serious discussion about what it should look like. I would say a wiki on this would be great. Maybe StrutsNewVersion or something. I don't do much with the wiki, can I just create a new page if I'm registered on it? On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:33:15 +0100, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe the whiteboard area is good fot this... http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard - Original Message - From: Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Struts has a roadmap here: http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html but maybe it would be easier/better to have something in the wiki, then lots of people could easily contribute Niall - Original Message - From: Michael Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework? Somehow I think the latter would be ill received. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:14:15 -0700, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:09:02 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was once proposed that we leap frog Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4 for Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to little things people could do better if our minimum were Servlet 2.3. Since no code has been written for Struts 2.x, it does not seem reasonable to hold back enhancements that we could make today, if our minimum platform were Servlet 2.3. Here's my +1 for moving the minimum platform to Servlet 2.3, today. Carpe Diem! -Ted. +1 to updating the minimum platform for Struts .Next to be Servlet 2.3 (and JSP 1.2), although the technical benefits of going one step further (2.4/2.0) are so compelling I'd be in favor of going there instead: * Servlet filters can run on request dispatcher calls * Cleaned up semantics for internationalized apps How might we want to take advantage of these newer Servlets features in Struts? I've seen a list of why we want to advance to 2.3, but I'm not clear on what 2.4 might do for Struts specifically. (My own requirements are for 2.3, but I'm still interested in what the future might hold. ;) * JSP 2.0 has many new features, including EL everywhere, simple tag apis, tag files, much better XML syntax, ... JSP 2.0 definitely has lots of good stuff in it. However, my feeling is that we want to avoid, or at least isolate, JSP dependencies in the Struts core. So in that sense, JSP 2.0 doesn't really matter to us very much. -- Martin Cooper The counterbalance, of course, is the smaller number of deployed containers supporting these APIs -- but that couterbalance gets smaller over time, and I suspect will be non-existent by the time we could get to a complete enough release to be GA quality. I also suspect, given our track record :-), that re-engineering Struts from scratch based on the latest platform APIs wouldn't take more time than a gradual refactoring from the current code. Regarding branches, STRUTS_1_2_BRANCH should definitely be created if it's not yet, for ongoing development on that track, so the head can be used for new development. And, since we'll contemplate non-backwards-compatible changes anyway, let's just call it Struts 2 and be done with it. Craig On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:47:01 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote: I would be very much in favour of breaking out the multipart handling properties into their own section. However, I don't really want to do this now. I'd prefer to wait until we rip out the multipart code into a filter, rationalise the interface, and better align the implementation with Commons FileUpload. With that set of changes, the specific parameters will likely change, so I'd prefer to change everything at once. (This is one of my own itches that has needed to wait for a Struts 2.x or higher, because of the Servlets 2.3 requirement. ;) On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:22:57 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: 29668 is basically a statement of the problem I am facing. I guess I should have looked through bugzilla. It looks as though 29824 proposes using setCharacterEncoding, so I don't think it would compile with Servlet 2.2. (I haven't tried it yet.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Ironic as it seems to myself to be saying it, I don't think I like the idea of Struts moving to newer spec/JDK versions just yet. Here at work, most of our development is now Struts-based, and much of it is moving to IBM Portal Server. Unfortunately, because of some issues between that product and WebSphere itself (and probably some other components), we are currently very sensitive to versioning, more so than we might otherwise be. For instance, I have a production app that is based on Struts 1.1, and I have it running on a rogue Tomcat server with JDK 1.3.1 because IBM is not yet supporting a higher JDK version, believe it or not! If the newest Struts has a bunch of cool features, but it requires a higher JDK or higher servlet specs than Tomcat or Websphere (when we finally figure out how to get the app up on it), I'm going to be in a bind with this app because I'm sure to want to use those features (and being able to make some good business cases for doing so even) but not be able to. If nothing else, that's going to be depressing :) The flip-side of the argument of course is that eventually everyone is going to want, and be able, to move to all the newest specs, JDK levels, etc., me along with them. And of course the difficult decision is when to make that move. My point in the end I think is that if you can scratch the itches without *requiring* newer versions of anything, I think that would be ideal. For those things that absolutely can't be done without newer versions, I'd like to see those new features optional or swappable in some way. Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies www.omnytex.com From: Anders Steinlein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200 It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum. It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the committers have revolve around more recent versions of the specs. I would think that this logic could also be applied to potential contributors who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to figure out how to get involved. Newer technoloy yeilds new ideas and new contributions. Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) \Anders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Can you keep using 1.2.3? .V Frank Zammetti wrote: Ironic as it seems to myself to be saying it, I don't think I like the idea of Struts moving to newer spec/JDK versions just yet. Here at work, most of our development is now Struts-based, and much of it is moving to IBM Portal Server. Unfortunately, because of some issues between that product and WebSphere itself (and probably some other components), we are currently very sensitive to versioning, more so than we might otherwise be. For instance, I have a production app that is based on Struts 1.1, and I have it running on a rogue Tomcat server with JDK 1.3.1 because IBM is not yet supporting a higher JDK version, believe it or not! If the newest Struts has a bunch of cool features, but it requires a higher JDK or higher servlet specs than Tomcat or Websphere (when we finally figure out how to get the app up on it), I'm going to be in a bind with this app because I'm sure to want to use those features (and being able to make some good business cases for doing so even) but not be able to. If nothing else, that's going to be depressing :) The flip-side of the argument of course is that eventually everyone is going to want, and be able, to move to all the newest specs, JDK levels, etc., me along with them. And of course the difficult decision is when to make that move. My point in the end I think is that if you can scratch the itches without *requiring* newer versions of anything, I think that would be ideal. For those things that absolutely can't be done without newer versions, I'd like to see those new features optional or swappable in some way. Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies www.omnytex.com From: Anders Steinlein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Struts Developers List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200 It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum. It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the committers have revolve around more recent versions of the specs. I would think that this logic could also be applied to potential contributors who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to figure out how to get involved. Newer technoloy yeilds new ideas and new contributions. Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the itches or time to fully read up on the current code. However, upon the development of a revolution-Struts, I and surely many others would be inspired to get involved right from the start. Just the thought of a Struts fully based on Servlet 2.4, JSP 2.0 and possibly even J2SE 5.0 makes me all warm inside. ;) \Anders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx -- Please post on Rich Internet Applications User Interface (RiA/SoA) http://www.portalvu.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:06:44 -0400, Frank Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ironic as it seems to myself to be saying it, I don't think I like the idea of Struts moving to newer spec/JDK versions just yet. Here at work, most of our development is now Struts-based, and much of it is moving to IBM Portal Server. Unfortunately, because of some issues between that product and WebSphere itself (and probably some other components), we are currently very sensitive to versioning, more so than we might otherwise be. Ironically, people wanting to run Struts in a portlet (JSR-168 compatible) environment should be the ones most interested in a Struts revolution :-). The current method signatures for all the important methods are very much dependent on the servlet APIs, and the various portal server vendors have all done their own (non-interoperable) modifications to Struts to make it kind-of sort-of work. We should be doing that. We can't do that based on Servlet 2.2 / JSP 1.1. Craig For instance, I have a production app that is based on Struts 1.1, and I have it running on a rogue Tomcat server with JDK 1.3.1 because IBM is not yet supporting a higher JDK version, believe it or not! If the newest Struts has a bunch of cool features, but it requires a higher JDK or higher servlet specs than Tomcat or Websphere (when we finally figure out how to get the app up on it), I'm going to be in a bind with this app because I'm sure to want to use those features (and being able to make some good business cases for doing so even) but not be able to. If nothing else, that's going to be depressing :) The flip-side of the argument of course is that eventually everyone is going to want, and be able, to move to all the newest specs, JDK levels, etc., me along with them. And of course the difficult decision is when to make that move. My point in the end I think is that if you can scratch the itches without *requiring* newer versions of anything, I think that would be ideal. For those things that absolutely can't be done without newer versions, I'd like to see those new features optional or swappable in some way. I don't believe it is possible to scratch the itches without *requiring* newer versions of anything. Choosing a newer version of servlet or JSP apis is buying in to the ability to do the fundamental architecture of Struts in a new and different way. That's not the kind of thing you do with optional add on packages that have extra requirements. Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies www.omnytex.com Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:10:43 +0100, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with what Vic said in this thread on the Servlet Spec issue - if we can take the Servlet version out of the equation so that any version can be plugged in to the core controller than that would be really good. We have that already, right? Struts runs on Servlet 2.2 / 2.3 / 2.4 platforms today. What you can't do is a fundamental redesign of a controller architecture that depends on 2.4 features and craft it in such a way that it's an optional add-on feature that can be plugged in on top of 2.2 or 2.3. Adding something like filters that work on a RequestDispatcher call cannot be added at the application level -- they have to be done by the container. Unless, of course, you plan on re-inventing what RequestDispatcher and Filter do ... but that seems like a monumental waste of time. The JDK thing is a different issue though - it could be developed with compatibility to existing JDK versions and keep everyone happy. I have no technical reasons, but I would like to go to JDK 1.5 simply for the reason that it scratches my itch to play with the latest stuff and hopefully produce simpler, cleaner code with the new features it provides. Standard JDK 5.0 annotations cannot be used (inside of Struts) if you want to work on prior JDKs. Neither can generics. Or autoboxing. Or (insert-your-favorite-new-feature-here) ... Without all of that, what's the point again? :-) Niall Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:31:27 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:14:15 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote: I also suspect, given our track record :-), that re-engineering Struts from scratch based on the latest platform APIs wouldn't take more time than a gradual refactoring from the current code. I sometimes wonder if not getting a clean start is why things keep taking so long. :) This is definitely a factor. The codebase was not designed to be easily tested. People are skittish about making significant changes, and so we tread softly and slowly. To mangle an old chestnut: I've been test-first, and I've been test-last. Test-first is better (and faster!). Given when (in the evolution of Java best practices) Struts was developed, I've been delighted at how long it has remained viable. Given where technology has proceeded since then, I'm personally going to be focused on the revolution approach rather than evolution. That's not to say that we (as a project) can't do both in parallel. But I probably won't be involved with new development myself, and them that do the work can make the decisions :) To the extent that this (you not being involved in the new development) turns out to be true, I'll be sad for not getting to continue to appreciate the immense number of high quality contributions you've made to Struts (in code, documentation, process, and community building) -- and glad to see that you haven't given up on open source projects at Apache :-). Good luck with your future endeavors! But we won't have any problem keeping your committer access readily usable either :-). Anyway, it does sound like the consensus is to create STRUTS_1_2_BRANCH at the 1.2.2 tag, dub the HEAD 1.3.0, and document the minimum for the HEAD as Servlet 2.3. +1 -Ted. Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
James Mitchell wrote: That would be a bad mistake. How many products do you know that have a 1.5 minimum requirement? If we're talking about Struts 2.0, it's not actually a product yet, so it's purely speculation. I'm not saying move the 1.x branch to 1.5. I'm not even saying that you *should* move the 2.0 branch to 1.5. I just thought I would put it out there as a thought. - Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:56:41 -0500, David Durham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James Mitchell wrote: That would be a bad mistake. How many products do you know that have a 1.5 minimum requirement? If we're talking about Struts 2.0, it's not actually a product yet, so it's purely speculation. The beehive folks did exactly this (base their code on JDK 5.0) so that they could take advantage of annotations, generics, and all that in their API designs. Looking at their code sure makes me jealous :-). And, they did it based on the same reasoning I proposed -- by the time we're *done*, JDK 5.0 will be widely deployed. And, in the mean time, a branch continuing the development of Struts 1.2.x (or perhaps 1.3.x) is certainly appropriate, since it is the mature version of the product that is better off being stable and backlwards compatible. (This parallel universes split is exactly what happened with the Apache HTTPD project, using exactly the 1.3 and 2.0 version number sequences :-). I'm not saying move the 1.x branch to 1.5. I'm not even saying that you *should* move the 2.0 branch to 1.5. I just thought I would put it out there as a thought. It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). - Dave Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and JSP 2.0 :-). I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum. It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the committers have revolve around more recent versions of the specs. I would think that this logic could also be applied to potential contributors who have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to figure out how to get involved. Newer technoloy yeilds new ideas and new contributions. David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
-0 (not beeing commiter) on servlet 2.4 as it is not 'enough' available on production servers Lot's of the apps I maintain are running under websphere 5 (some of them use websphere 4). I agree JSP2.0 have interesting features, but can't we wait servlet 2.4 to be avaible on (almost) all current application server ? I like your idea Craig. +1 for going to 2.4. -James -Original Message- From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:14 PM To: Struts Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:09:02 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was once proposed that we leap frog Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4 for Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to little things people could do better if our minimum were Servlet 2.3. Since no code has been written for Struts 2.x, it does not seem reasonable to hold back enhancements that we could make today, if our minimum platform were Servlet 2.3. Here's my +1 for moving the minimum platform to Servlet 2.3, today. Carpe Diem! -Ted. +1 to updating the minimum platform for Struts .Next to be Servlet 2.3 (and JSP 1.2), although the technical benefits of going one step further (2.4/2.0) are so compelling I'd be in favor of going there instead: * Servlet filters can run on request dispatcher calls * Cleaned up semantics for internationalized apps * JSP 2.0 has many new features, including EL everywhere, simple tag apis, tag files, much better XML syntax, ... The counterbalance, of course, is the smaller number of deployed containers supporting these APIs -- but that couterbalance gets smaller over time, and I suspect will be non-existent by the time we could get to a complete enough release to be GA quality. I also suspect, given our track record :-), that re-engineering Struts from scratch based on the latest platform APIs wouldn't take more time than a gradual refactoring from the current code. Regarding branches, STRUTS_1_2_BRANCH should definitely be created if it's not yet, for ongoing development on that track, so the head can be used for new development. And, since we'll contemplate non-backwards-compatible changes anyway, let's just call it Struts 2 and be done with it. Craig On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:47:01 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote: I would be very much in favour of breaking out the multipart ?handling properties into their own section. However, I don't really ?want to do this now. I'd prefer to wait until we rip out the ?multipart code into a filter, rationalise the interface, and better ?align the implementation with Commons FileUpload. With that set of ?changes, the specific parameters will likely change, so I'd prefer ?to change everything at once. (This is one of my own itches that ?has needed to wait for a Struts 2.x or higher, because of the ?Servlets 2.3 requirement. ;) On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:22:57 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: ?29668 is basically a statement of the problem I am facing. ?I guess ?I should have looked through bugzilla. ? ?It looks as though 29824 ?proposes using setCharacterEncoding, so I don't think it would ?compile with Servlet 2.2. ?(I haven't tried it yet.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our name has changed. Please update your address book to the following format: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
+1 , 2.3 +1, 2.4 - Since we seem to take 18mo between releases, (that's just the way it is) we may as well go for 2.4. -Original Message- From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:09 AM To: 'Struts Developers List', 'Struts Developers List' Subject: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?) It was once proposed that we leap frog Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4 for Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to little things people could do better if our minimum were Servlet 2.3. Since no code has been written for Struts 2.x, it does not seem reasonable to hold back enhancements that we could make today, if our minimum platform were Servlet 2.3. Here's my +1 for moving the minimum platform to Servlet 2.3, today. Carpe Diem! -Ted. On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 10:47:01 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote: I would be very much in favour of breaking out the multipart ?handling properties into their own section. However, I don't really ?want to do this now. I'd prefer to wait until we rip out the ?multipart code into a filter, rationalise the interface, and better ?align the implementation with Commons FileUpload. With that set of ?changes, the specific parameters will likely change, so I'd prefer ?to change everything at once. (This is one of my own itches that ?has needed to wait for a Struts 2.x or higher, because of the ?Servlets 2.3 requirement. ;) On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:22:57 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: ?29668 is basically a statement of the problem I am facing. ?I guess ?I should have looked through bugzilla. ? ?It looks as though 29824 ?proposes using setCharacterEncoding, so I don't think it would ?compile with Servlet 2.2. ?(I haven't tried it yet.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
+1 to move base Servlet API to 2.3 -0 to moving to 2.4 At this point, I think we should be conservative and wait to make 2.4 the minimum until we can explain why we need it. If that happens during the course of development, then fine, but if many users are still using Servlet 2.3, then let's not move too quickly. Perhaps we should have a similar justification for 2.3, but I guess I feel like it's old enough now that just because is an OK reason. Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place. - Carlos Santana
Re: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
From: Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] That justification doesn't cut it, for me at least. Based on our past behaviour, it's very likely that there will be something fairly stable that people can pick up as a nightly build long, long before the final release. That will likely still be long before the major app servers support Servlets 2.4. Please stay on 2.3 for a while... I'm on HP-UX and HP always lags behind providing Apache/Tomcat distributions. (I get the feeling we're supposed to be happy they're free and not complain.) While I don't mind using a different minor Tomcat version, I'm a little uncomfortable going to Tomcat 5 before they've officially blessed it. -- Wendy Smoak - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:22:56 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: Perhaps we should have a similar justification for 2.3, but I guess I feel like it's old enough now that just because is an OK reason. Why 2.3? (1) It is preferred platform of active Struts developers. (2) It is needed for certain enhancements, including some to file upload. (3) It simplifies distribution and integration of JavaServer Faces components which are dependant on Servlet 2.3. -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:03:59 -0400, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:22:56 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: Perhaps we should have a similar justification for 2.3, but I guess I feel like it's old enough now that just because is an OK reason. Why 2.3? (1) It is preferred platform of active Struts developers. (2) It is needed for certain enhancements, including some to file upload. (3) It simplifies distribution and integration of JavaServer Faces components which are dependant on Servlet 2.3. There was also some discussion a LONG time ago about using a filter for the controller instead of a servlet. It's been so long, though, that I've entirely forgotten what advantages we thought we might get from that. ;-} -- Martin Cooper -T. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
