The reasoning behind this is:
1) action2/ti is really just another version so shouldn't be given a
package name based on the version (when we go version 3 code named
something else will we have to change the package names again?).
Thus, it should stay at org.apache.struts.
2) Webwork as discussed in my message about xwork is xwork
implemented on the web. Therefore what was xwork should exist in a
package name that reflects that. (So, if xwork were brought over it
might be called org.apache.struts.core, for example, and for swing,
say, org.apache.struts.swing)
I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulates my
dissatisfaction with action2 -- it is possible to imagine a
revolution from Struts 2 to Struts 3 which does not require
completely reorganizing the package structure, but if there's an
"action2" package lying around, that would be pretty awkward.
I'm not sure how I feel about org.apache.struts.web although I see
some of the appeal. I wonder about how servlet and portlet fit in
(probably could be subpackages of web, I suppose?).
I would also not object to org.apache.struts.webwork
I simply don't like "SAF" for purely aesthetic reasons, but not to
the point where I'd make a fuss.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
