On 5/5/06, Phil Zoio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Jouravlev wrote: > On 5/5/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If the existing branches can continue to develop, then the community >> is not >> hurt by breaking compatibility, they are actually HELPED because the >> merger yields a much greater value in the end, and people will probably >> want to migrate despite the problems. > > > <Friday> > I am trying to imagine a book title: "New features of Struts 1.3", and > then another one on the same shelf "Struts 2.0: a definitive guide". > Something does not feel right... > > This situation is worse than General Motors product line. Imagine GM > 1.3 and GM 2.0 instead of Saab 9-3 and Chevrolet Malibu. Well, Saab is > almost dead anyway. For this reason, they should be separate projects which should be allowed to evolve independently and indefinitely into the future (as long as there are developers - such as yourself, apparently - who are willing to do). There is no reason in my opinion why Struts 1.x should not be allowed to become Struts (Classic) 2.x, 3.x, etc. at some point in the future. It's life cycle should not be cut short by replacement with WW. Insteady, they should be frameworks with parallel existence. Let users decide when (if at all) to make the switch. Don't force it on them.
The current versioning/naming system will force them, because it does not make distinction between Classic and WebWork. Most users and/or their managers know that higher version number means newer and better product. Which is why I preferred "Classic" name for 1.x codebase. I think that before 2.0 and 1.3 are released, it is still possible to reconsider the names. That is, if 1.3 is still considered worth working on. Sorry for hijaacing the Struts 2.0 thread. But Don mentioned 1.x first ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
