Paul Benedict wrote:
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?
Well, at the marketing level, maybe. That this necessarily translates to
excising the string "webwork" from all the package names is less
obvious. As an outside observer, I see no need to systematically remove
the string "webwork" from everywhere as if it were a curse word.
Also, my understanding was that Struts is now an "umbrella" and that the
gain was from being under that umbrella. I don't see how this requires
the string "webwork" or "ww" to be excised from everywhere, down to the
nth level of package names -- in particular, once the package names
start with org.apache.struts.
It would more imply excising the string "opensymphony" from everywhere
-- which is a step that I find completely understandable, since
opensymphony is an umbrella and webwork is moving from that umbrella
over to this one.
I thought
it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not
for the name?
Well, there is no "Struts 2.0" really. At least that's my understanding
of the official line now. Struts is an umbrella. You have Struts Action
and Struts Shale.
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.
Well, my guess is that the motivation of the Webwork people for this was
to *gain* the Apache/Struts name, not particularly to *lose* the Webwork
name. If Apache/Struts is now an umbrella, that implies replacing the
string "OpenSymphony" rather than the "Webwork" string.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
