On 4/18/06, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No... but I do think we should shield Struts users from the XWork > API/documentation as much as possible (i.e. a lot more than WebWork > does). I _suppose_ it's nice that you can drop down to XWork and do > non-web things, but I don't think we need to expose 99.9% of Struts > users to this. For starters, we should have a struts.xml, not an > xwork.xml.
I would tend to disagree. I feel that the separate of concerns between XWork and a web application front end are important. I don't believe it would be helpful to start lumping things back together again. I would definately feel that this would be too big of a change for SAF 2.0.0. No matter how simple it sounds, there would be some detail that created a showstopper, and then another, and August would turn into February. I do think one problem is that our approach to referring to XWork in the WW book and documentation is inconsistent. There is a tendency to refer to everything as WebWork when it is not. Moving forward, I think we simply need to be more carefult to say XWork when we mean XWork and SAF when we mean SAF, and perhaps just refer to "the framework" when we do not care to make the distinction. > I think support for generics is a must. Struts 2.0.0 will require JDK > 1.5, right? For example, getParameters() should return Map<String, > String[]>. No, Struts Action 2.0 will *not* require Java 1.5. I'm sure some future release will increment the platform, but right now, most everyone I know is using Java 1.4 in production. Action 2.0 is meant to be something that we can all start using in production now. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
