Ted:
I hear what you're saying, but I think that "struts-core" is the most
accurate label for the things included in that artifact.
Conceptually, it is "Struts 1.x core", but that's too verbose.
I'm for sticking with "core".
Joe
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 :)
-T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Joe Germuska
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blog.germuska.com
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
