I agree with all of Niall's points below. I'm especially concerned at the
loss of history mentioned in #2, since history can be so important.
--
Martin Cooper
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I have a few concerns/questions about the initial checkin of standalone
Tiles into the sandbox, which David indicates in the SVN log is extracted
from Struts 1.1:
1) I'm wondering why this is based on Struts 1.1, rather than the current
version of tiles code? I did a quick scan (for starters) of the tiles taglib
and while there hasn't been a large amount of activity since Struts 1.1
there have been some bug fixes and some other minor changes and it seems a
shame to have to redo these changes rather than copying the current
versions.
2) IMO it would be better to use SVN copy to create the initial code base -
seems a shame to loose all the subversion history by adding these as new
artefacts. Since we have Struts 1.1 versions tagged they could be copied
either from the current versions or the Struts 1.1 versions.
3) The taglib package has been renamed to "org.apache.taglib.tiles" - I'm
wondering if this will create a confusion with the Jakarta Taglibs project
which uses "org.apache.taglibs.???" package name? Would this not be better
and more consistent as "org.apache.tiles.taglib"?
4) Similar question about the message resources which are being duplicated
from Struts - are we OK to use the "org.apache.util" package name for these
classes rather than "org.apache.tiles.util"? Also, its probably another
discussion, but maybe these need to be replaced with something else (commons
resources?) rather than duplicating from struts.
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
