When you released 1.3.1, did you just roll Action or did you create a release for each module? If only action, does
that mean the rest are still at 1.3.0? Frank's idea of a compatibility table, in my mind, shows how potentially ugly
this can become.
Still, if there was a group of Struts committers that only wanted to work on a single part of Action 1, say core and not
taglibs, I can see us leaving things the way it is, however, we need to realize the huge price in end user complexity
and confusion that costs. The burden of proof, so to speak, should be on separate releases, not consolidation. At this
point, I just don't see a lot of new development done on Action 1 with Shale and Action 2 in the works. I could be
wrong, of course. :)
Wendy Smoak wrote:
Looking at the list again, struts-tiles is missing. And I'm not sure
how Faces is going to fit in there, it has a different set of
dependencies than the others. That will all sort itself out when you
start moving things around, though. :)
For Faces and Tiles, I put forth the same test for a subproject:
a) The subproject has its own distinct community that requires a new release
cycle
b) The subproject is relevant to more than one framework (optional, but
encouraged)
You know, there might be another option. We could have two subprojects: Action 1 core and Action 1 extras. This would
allow Action releases to not require everyone to wait until Faces bugs are fixed, and with just one extension
subproject, the dependency would be much easier to follow. However, this might have the some of the disadvantages of
both, especially when a project like Tiles is more active than the others.
Don
--
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]
