Ted,
Another trigger might be a revolutionary change to the feature set. If
we did everything that's already on the 1.3 to 1.5 roadmap, I could
see going to 2.x then.
To me chains.xml, decompose and adapt the request processor and ability
to use Commands instead of Actions is a revolution. Great credit to who
came up with this. Changes are not just in Java methods but also in the
abilities to use XML such as chains.xml.
I thought that calling it 2.0 would be scary to some, though I don't
think you are obliged to break the code when going from 1.x to 2.0
I was aware of the roadmap, I just think in retrospect the changes from
1.2 (and benefits) are so big that just calling it 1.3 doesn't give full
merit. Maybe the roadmap could be changed to move stuff in 1.4 and 1.5
to 1.6 and 1.7?
If a Ruby on Struts is something that you want to use in your own
work, then you should do it, and share the result with others. That's
what we are doing here. :)
Sure, it was just meant as an example, but if I had a long weekend I
would give a go at it...
Ah, well, we're not marketers and we're not selling anything. We're a group of
engineers working together to create and maintain the framework that we want to
use in our own applications.
Well, a bit of marketing can't hurt if it corresponds to the truth, and,
most importantly, it supports the developers who have adopted it, so
they will have less explaining to do later why why they chose this
"historic, dusty" framework that noone talks about any longer.
Communicating the good is something that is in some way owed to the
adopters, as well as the handworking Struts contributors, of course.
I don't think anyone is married to the term "Classic", it's just that
no one's suggested another.
So let me formally propose that Struts point releases as of 1.3
including be called Struts CORE.
(core in capitals), see my other post "Struts Communication" on the
reasoning (sort of stands for ChainOfREsponsibility and at the same time
signifies the revolution in the request processor, as well as the new
modular/subproject structure). I think that would be quite sexy.
That would mean the "Classic" label is kept for releases prior to 1.3,
which I think is fairer in reflecting what is "old and established".
Maybe that would be some middle ground without disturbing the set ways
of release management.
Kindest regards,
Wolfgang Gehner
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
