>>cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful >>people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork" >>and "ww" from all the code, isn't there?
Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not for the name? I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage, but this entire process doesn't make any sense unless you're specficially wanting to be rebranded as Struts. -- Paul --- Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hubert Rabago wrote: > > On 3/24/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will > >>someday see an Action3 and Action4 too. > >> > >>But, regardless of what I think, I would suggest that we wait a few > >>days and give the other new committers a chance to chime in. Ian > >>indicated a preference for saf, and the other new committers might > >>have a preference too. > > > > > > +0. Or +1 if I had time to volunteer. > > > > I could live with action2 as well. Now that I'm seeing this renaming > > from this perspective though, I'm wishing some of it mentions WebWork. > > In fact I wish we could do something like org.apache.struts.webwork. > > I don't know how that would look like, though. > > > > - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.webwork > > Actually, the above is the renaming that seems to make the most sense a > priori. This is the exact same code now being hosted under > org.apache.struts (struts now being an umbrella of sorts) so simply > changing com.opensymphony -> org.apache.struts is the most natural > thing. It is the transition that would be readily clearest to webwork > users transitioning to the apache-hosted code. > > It's up to the webwork people (it's their work and I'm just a casual > observer) but if it were my work, I would be insisting that the webwork > name remain at this package naming level. > > > > - WebWork* classes -> WebWork* > > - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts WebWork > > - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> webwork. > > - ww: tag prefix -> ww: > > No obvious reason to change this prefix. Why should existing webwork > users have to deal with a frivolous prefix change like that? > > > > > That's my 2c. Like tm jee (TJ?), I'd be okay with any naming strategy > > the community settles on. > > I understand of course that technically it makes no difference, but my > sense of things is that if the webwork people passively let the Struts > people remove the string "webwork" from all these package names, they > will not be starting off this relationship on the best foot. The Struts > people will cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful > people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork" > and "ww" from all the code, isn't there? > > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > Hubert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
