On 8/25/05, David Durham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, I'm following this list off and on, but fairly regularly, I > don't recall anyone else saying "hey, this shouldn't be in struts". I > have no doubt that others feel the way you do, just interested in some > names that's all. I don't think this is a decision that's made based on > technical merits as you suggest it should. From what I can tell, this > is a community effort as much as it is a technical effort.
It's primarly a community effort, David. We believe great communities build great software. From our perspective, community always trumps technology. We run the project as a collaborative meritocracy. No one person can run the show here. The process is designed so that everything is always a team effort. It was always apparent to the PMC that Shale was not an appropriate candidate for Struts 2.x. But, we do believe it makes for a fine subproject. Just as many Struts developers migrated from custom tags to JSTL, many Struts developers will migrate to JSF. We kept the tags and added the Struts EL subproject; likewise, we're keeping Struts Classic and adding the Struts Shale subproject. Of course, the major factor is always: who will volunteer to do the work? Right now, we have volunteers for both Shale and Classic, and so work continues on both. So long as we have volunteers for multiple products, multiple products will remain the status quo. One of the marvelous things about open source is that the number of volunteers expand to fill whatever space interests them. By adding Shale, we are not stretching the existing volunteers thinner. We are creating opportunities for new people to volunteer, who would not have joined us otherwise. Like, say, Gary for example :) -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
