I agree with Bob on all his points below. It wouldn't look good to do one radical change of the API and then another. If we want to do a transitional release maybe the way to do it as a 1.9 release similar to how Lucene did it or a 2.0 "preview" release.
Also, if SAF 2 will be radically different from WW2, we might want to keep opensymphony open so bug fixes can be submitted to WW as well, especially now that people are looking more at using WW2. Gabe ----- Original Message ---- From: Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:34:59 PM Subject: Re: [action2] Action Next++ (Ti Phase 2) 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
