Theoretically, I agree with you. However, pushing a project through
Incubation takes a lot of work, and we are already stretched trying to
get a stable Action 2 release out. In order to meet our August target,
we have to get the feature scope wrapped up in the next few weeks, and
start pushing out betas by late June.
If we had an infinite workforce, I'd say let's do it. As it is now, I
think we should tackle one thing at a time. Therefore, I think
repackaging XWork will be a good workaround until we have time to take
on XWork migration.
Don
James Mitchell wrote:
If XWork were at Apache, it's hard to see it as anything but
'org.apache.xwork'. Is that not possible?
I think XWork truly deserves to stand on it's own (like it does today)
and not be tied to anything else. Surely it can live as a TLP at
Apache can it not?
--
James Mitchell
On Jun 13, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Don Brown wrote:
What about doing what Sun does with Xalan for Java 5 and rename XWork
packages? With the changes we are making to XWork 2.0, I don't think
it will co-exist with WebWork 2.2.2/3 very well, if at all.
Therefore:
com.opensymphony.xwork
will become:
org.apache.struts.action2.com.opensymphony.xwork or
org.apache.com.opensymphony.xwork or even
org.apache.struts.action2.xwork
If the new API does its job, XWork should be completely hidden for the
user anyways and for legacy apps, they just need a simple refactoring.
Don
On 6/13/06, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Isn't possible to be an issue with XWork dependency? I don't think 2
different versions of XWork can co-exist on the same webapp.... but I
may be wrong.
./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
On 6/13/06, Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it would have made Atlassian's life easier.
> > JIRA is written with
> > WW1 and Confluence is written with WW2, the two
> > versions cannot
> > coexist in the same web application, and they still
> > haven't gotten
> > around to migrating JIRA. When people (like me) run
> > both applications,
> > we need to run them as two separate web apps, instead
> > of two "modules"
> > that can share session.
>
> Not to nitpick, but WW1 and WW2 CAN peacefully coexist, because we
changed the package names in the change. At Notiva we converted the
app piecemeal from WW1 to WW2 over time, moving over new pieces and
migrating anything old that we had to touch. We simply mapped them
to different extensions.
>
> I'm not sure why Atlassian didn't switch over. Maybe it just
didn't ever make sense. Maybe there was some other issue with common
configuration files that we didn't run into at Notiva. But I can
tell you that they can run side-by-side, just as WebWork 2.x and
Struts 2.x will be able to.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via Jive Forums
>
http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=34181&messageID=66503#66503
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]