James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
"Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts
CORe a while ago, and Ted held it up for a while. I didn't see many
objections to it on the dev list at the time.
Use of COR since Struts 1.3 really opened it up for the future and
flexible uses. To me, Struts since 1.3 is a "Struts Command Framework"
(SCF) rather than SAF. I see a "Command 2.0" or "COR 2.0" but not
"Action 2.0"or "SAF 2.0"
Disclosure: I'd have an easier job marketing Struts book I coauthored
with Vic (published in German and French) with Struts COR (or Command)
than with Struts Action. We'd advocated a kind of ActionContext with
.execute(context) on top of Struts 1.1 early on.
PS for Ted: please forgive me bringing it up again. James just struck a
chord.
Wolfgang Gehner
James Mitchell wrote:
I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
[Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
"Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
then cancelled before sending......"Action" bothers me, but it's hard
to articulate why. It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
parts. Too little too late...
That reminds me of a recent conversation...
Developer #1 - "Hey, did you hear about the recent changes in Struts?"
Developer #2 - "No man, when did that happen?"
Developer #1 - "Last week, it's called Action now"
Developer #2 - "But, you've always had to extend Action."
Developer #1 - "No, I mean it is called Struts Action"
Developer #2 - "Um, dude, it's been called 'Action' since the beginning"
Developer #1 - "No! Struts 'Action' Framework" (with air quotes)
Developer #2 - "So that's the new Chain thing?"
Developer #1 - "It's the same framework, different name"
Developer #2 - "You mean the new 'Ti' thing?"
Developer #1 - "No! Here, go to their web site" (opens Firefox)
(Developer #3 walks up)
Developer #1 - "See, it's called 'Struts Action Framework'"
Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put
things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to
mention [BEER]!) This is no different.
We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on
people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts
that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the
rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
mailreaders had twit lists. :)
-Ted.
On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure this is a good idea.
By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
"you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
you can ask Ted!!"
Your thoughts?
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
On 1/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Struts Action Framework.
I figured that out.
Is that what Struts is now being called?
That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
for more info.
I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
known as
Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was just
surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
think
that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
mindshare in
the developer community.
In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
* [SAF 2.x]
or
* [Action 2.x]
-Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -
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]
--
HTH, Ted.
http://www.husted.com/poe/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
