On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:22:05 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Similar thinking anyway Jack :) You tend to use a lot of big words that > my primitive brain can't handle mid-week :) but otherwise... > > My point simply boils down to this... > > Anyone that CAN upgrade to 1.3 will probably do so, and likely won't > notice any difference, at least as 1.3 stands now as far as I know it... > some of the discussions yesterday and today could change that, but > assuming not, then this is probably true. > > It's those of us that CAN'T upgrade, and maybe won't be able to for a > while, that concerns me. And there are those that simply DON'T want to > upgrade too. If there are those of us willing to keep 1.2 alive and > developing, assuming we do so with forward-compatibility in mind, I can't > see why there wouldn't be support for this.
Upgrading from 1.2.6 to 1.2.7, 1.2.8, etc. is still upgrading. If the people that make decisions don't let you upgrade, then you're already stuck. Unless, that is, upgrading to a new dot-dot release is OK, but a dot release is not. However, if that *is* the case, it is probably based on the understanding that dot-dot releases are bug fix releases, which is what the entire software industry, at least as I know it, uses them to mean. You seem to want to inject new functionality into a dot-dot release to delibrately mislead the decision makers into allowing you to upgade and get that new functionality while they think you're only getting bug fixes. Or am I misunderstanding? > And also note I'm not saying anyone should support 1.1 or prior, but I do > feel that supporting and expanding the latest and greatest in 1.3, AS WELL > AS the *immediate predecessor* 1.2 version, keeps more people happy than > does just building on 1.3. If the struts committers only want to focus > their own time on 1.3, that's cool, I understand that, but if someone else > is willing to do what they are not, why not support the effort? Perhaps we should just call the current trunk 1.2.7? If you think it's OK to add significant new functionality into a dot-dot release, why would we change the dot version for what is in trunk now? What distinguishes one dot release from another of dot-dot releases can also include significant new functionality? -- Martin Cooper > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > > On Wed, March 16, 2005 1:12 pm, Dakota Jack said: > > If Frank is thinking the way I am, there is a real worry that what was > > an idea to use Chain of Responsibility on top of Template Method to > > make a composable request processor to make Struts more flexible, an > > idea that probably will have to be significantly refactored after > > testing, is getting to look like a jacket that will be placed in a lot > > of areas of Struts prior to refactoring, etc. and leading to rigidity > > in a different direction. Thus, in order to avoid having to go to a > > different world view and leaving open the extension of the present > > one, many of us are beginning to hang on to copies of 1.2 as the > > potential basis for the future at this point. > > > > Jack > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:53:52 -0000, Niall Pemberton > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:32 PM > >> > >> > But if there are others that still want or need to use 1.2, and there > >> are > >> > some that are willing to tackle some of that work, wouldn't there be > >> > support for that (keeping compatibility in mind of course, I think > >> that's > >> > a perfectly valid concern)? I mean, let's be honest, there's probably > >> not > >> > a whole lot coming down the pipe that can and/or could be back-ported, > >> but > >> > if something comes up, at least until enough of the community has > >> moved to > >> > 1.3, and there are people willing to do it, why not support that > >> effort? > >> > >> What I don't understand is if 1.3 is compatible with 1.2 then why are > >> you > >> happy to move to a new 1.2.x release, but not a new 1.3 release? The > >> only > >> reason I can think of is if someone has customized the the 1.2 > >> RequestProcessor? What I'm supporting is all running under v1.2 > >> currently > >> and I'm expecting upgrading to v1.3 to not be a big deal. > >> > >> Niall > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > "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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
