I'm not sure two major releases is what's best for users. - If SAF2 is going to be the same as WW2, why have it at all? I think it will confuse users unnecessarily. - We'll be stuck supporting WW2, SAF2, and SAF3 instead of just WW2 and SAF2. - Some users will migrate to SAF2 and then will have to migrate again to SAF3. - People will think we're incompetent and disorganized and that we care more about playing than supporting users based on the fact that we completely redesigned our framework twice in such a short period of time (SAF1 -> SAF2 -> SAF3).
I think we're overestimating the amount of effort it will take to do this right. Designing a clean API that we can support for the next 5 years should be our #1 priority. We can do a minimal amount of work on the implementation so we can release ASAP and clean it up later. Bob On 4/24/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the RoughSpots page, > > * http://wiki.apache.org/struts/RoughSpots > > there's a reference to Action 3.x that speaks as if it's far away. > That doesn't need to be the case. We can create a branch for "Action > Next" or "Ti2" as soon as the code comes down from the incubator. We > did the same for Action 1.2 and Action 1.3. We've continued to > maintain and extend Action 1.2, while more agressive changes where > made to Action 1.3. > > The original proposal was for Ti to happen in two phases. The first > phase was to release Action 2.0 based on WebWork 2.2 by making only > necessary and prudent changes. More aggressive changes were to happen > in Ti Phase 2. Many of the "Rough Spots" may be Phase 2 changes. Phase > 2 might be Action 2.1 or Action 3.x. That's a decision we can make > later. > > Personally, I don't believe the release of Action 2.0 is going to > create a migration stampede. Some people who are starting new projects > may decide to use Action 2 instead of Action 1. But the people I know > won't bother to migrate existing applications. At least not anytime > soon. > > Right now, some teams that are looking forward to Action 2 are getting > started with WebWork 2.2 now. I suggest that Job One should be to get > a current release out there that we can use while we work on Phase 2. > Otherwise, we could easily find ourself maintaining WebWork 2.x at > OpenSymphony and then having to mirror any changes in Action 2.x at > Apache Struts. > > I think it's important to first create a stable release of Action 2.0 > as the direct successor to WebWork 2.2, and then focus on the more > aggressive changes slated for Phase 2. We can make it very clear to > people that "Phase 2" is in the works, so people who don't want to > migrate more than once can make an informed decision. > > Thoughts? > > -Ted. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
