But, from what you've said, I would have made the same argument at that point, that being that 1.1 should have been 2.0. In fact, as you describe here, I would have argued it even more stongly because I think the case is even clearer.
Be that as it may, clearly it is too late to care about that decision, but I would argue that it's not too late for the next release. I would contend that the fundamental nature of the change to a CoR pattern warrants the major version bump. I think it needs to be made more clear that the next version really is a big change.
The fact that you can still use the "classic" RP, while cool, doesn't really change my opinion because the default, and more importantly *what is being recommended as the next best practice* is changing. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the ability to switch to the classic RP doesn't change anything (although it's neat!)
It's kind of like the change from Windows 2000 to Windows XP (not quite, but work with me here :))... I can set up a WinXP box that looks just like a Win2K box, and accept for some added functionality, works essentially the same. But clearly there were some changes throughout that fundamentally changed the way some things worked under the covers, *but not in a visible way*. Would any of us have agree with Microsoft calling it Windows 2000 v1.1?
Like I said, not a perfect analogy, but I trust you get the point :)
Frank
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:48:39 -0500 (EST), Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good point about the original RP still being present and usable... but, I would assume (although I can't say with any authority) that there are significant changes (not functional) besides the RP piece, would that be accurate? If so, my point I still feel is valid, although perhaps diminished a bit :)
Historical perspective ... the changes from 1.0 to 1.1 were MUCH more impactful on the typical application (RequestProcessor was refactored out of ActionServlet) than the current delta between 1.2 and 1.3, but we were fine with staying 1.x because it was fundamentally backwards compatible for typical use cases, but we also added a bunch of new features (ike sub-app modules). As long as that is the case, the only argument for a 2.x version number that makes any sense would be marketing related (get some attention with a major new version number to hide the fact that it's pretty much the same as before when you look at it from the outside).
Frank
Craig
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
