The Struts project used to have a single deliverable/artifact, which was
Struts, the product. Using the same name for both made sense then. Now
that the Struts project has multiple deliverables/artifacts, they
obviously need different names. It just happens that many of the
deliverables are subcomponents of the original product, and that one is
an assembly of deliverables roughly equivalent to the original product.
So, the question is, does it make sense to overload the name 'Struts' to
mean both
- Struts: the project (w/ various deliverables)
- Struts: the product (a deliverable of the project,
comprised of other deliverables but *not* all of them)
Especially since then Shale, Ti, etc. are at the same conceptual level
as (and not a part of) Struts (the product), even though they are a part
of Struts (the project)...
I do think there needs to be a name, distinct from the project name, to
describe the (currently primary) deliverable. If you're still not
convinced, try removing '(the project)' and '(the product)' from this
email and see if it still makes any sense ;-)
L.
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
One option I've said a couple of times that isn't on that list and seems
like it isn't getting due consideration: "STRUTS"!
I really don't understand why there would be any desire or need to
change from the name in use now. As Laurie quite coherently stated
earlier today, there is already an understanding in the community that
Struts is a project, but also is a product. IMO, that should continue
to be true.
We should see:
Struts 1.3.0
...which consists of:
Core x.x.x
Tiles x.x.x
Validator x.x.x
...and so on...
I think it's fair to say that the version number of Core would always
match the version number of Struts. But the other subproject numbers
can go off and do whatever they want.
But when someone comes to get Struts, *TODAY*, they are looking for that
one download that contains everything they need. I don't see why this
should change after breaking out the subprojects.
How should the Struts version number increment? I'm not as sure about
that, but that is to me a separate question anyway. Call it Struts and
be done with it. That neatly avoids all the confusion IMO.
Frank
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 11/3/05, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW, was "Struts
Distribution" voted down already, because I thought that was the most
intuitive
name for what we are trying to do.
IIRC it was Martin's suggestion, I think it got lost in the Great
Version Debate. :)
So far we have
- Struts Classic
- Struts Core Library
- Struts Distribution
Any other options, and which do you prefer?
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
