Bingo! The palace revolt continues! On 11/3/05, Laurie Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > >
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
