On 9/5/05, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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".
I'm with Joe on this. I really do think that 'core' is the most appropriate moniker. It's true that not all of the other subprojects plug into it, but I don't see that as a requirement for calling what really is the core of the framework 'core'. -- Martin Cooper 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] > >
