Ted Husted wrote:
The moniker "Core" did make a lot of sense when we were thinking that the other Struts subprojects would depend on Core. But, we dismissed that idea when we decided to host Shale. Now, should we decide to host Struts Ti one day, we would have two Java subprojects not dependant on "Core". By deciding to work on subprojects like Ti and Shale, the volunteers seems to be sending a clear message that Struts is not just about Struts Core anymore. So, perhaps, we should give that codebase it's own identity. And, we do have to call it something. We're having great success with Maven, and Maven expects artifacts to have names. The closest we could come to a no-name artifact would be struts-struts-1.3.0 -- which is too odd, even for me :)
Good points... struts-struts-1.3.0... maybe it should be factored out to struts^2-1.3.0? ;)
The interesting thing about Shale and Ti though is that they are, as I understand it, proposals for where to take Struts next. At least, that's how they started out. Let's say one of them was choosen... what would it be called then? I would think it would simply be called Struts, right?
The point of course being that whatever the official "thing" is at any given point in time should probably be called simply Struts. It sounds to me like core did make some sense at the time, but it seems like that time has passed.
And with one of the main stated goals of Ti being simplicity, "Struts" fits that goal best I think :)
Frank
-T. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
