That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be
understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE
strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's a
very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as
"Chain Of REsponsibility" :-)
So my afterthought is: wouldn't it be cool if I could say "We're using
Struts CORE with the XXX extension"
With CORE in capital letters. Or CORe? Either way, it would stand for:
Robust yet up to speed. Established yet pushing the envelope. Using
patterns yet being open. Also reflects the motivations for moving to the
new architecture.
XXX could be Ti, Shale, some DAO, AJAX, RoR, whatever.
Should have read ... 1.3 seems to be *imminent*...
Wolfgang
Marky Goldstein wrote:
As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that
there are many cells of people working on different editions
of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc.
Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups
should come together to discuss if they have commons.
Do you think that one day we will have THAT FRAMEWORK
or we still have to decide on many different frameworks? Hmm,
I don't think that a web application framework should be decided
on the requriements. I think there should be one good one for all
requirements that occur in 99% of all web applications.
Best regards,
Marky
Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects,
too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than
a minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from the new
flexibility this *major new feature* offers.
I've also seen the great amount of work that goes into this release.
To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0.
Hell, if you are scared about that, call it at least 1.5, but
consider to give it the merit it deserves.
What do you think?
I think it really deserves it. I know Struts versioning has always
been conservative, but I am not advocating to call it Struts 5 (like
Java 5), which might look too much like marketing. Here we are
talking about the real value this new version will provide.
Everyone wonders if Struts is dying. I don't think it is. With
1.3/"1.5" it gets a major push as far as extensibility is concerned
(which should be a key role of any <i>framework</i>. With tweaking
the struts chains, creating a "Struby" (Ruby on Struts) would
probably be the work of a fun long weekend. Talk about extending the
life of Struts, here it is.
Humbly, I think same goes for the label "Struts Classic", which I
personally gives it the image of old, which certainly 1.3 (1.5) does
not deserve. I think the label Struts Classic should be dropped.
Marketing uses "Classic" when they want to discourage people using
it, and rather buy something new. Or they blundered on something new.
Neither is the case here.
Also, would anyone want to step forward and be vocal about what is
new with Struts 1.3 ("1.5") in discussions like
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37365 ?
Kind regards,
Wolfgang Gehner
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
