Heh, what about Struts? That might work? And, then, like the rest of the world, you could have versions like 1.* and 2.*, and 3.*. Oh, that was the proposal which the newly knighted can't seem to stomach. Too rational.
On 6/28/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am very much against naming 1.x "Classic" . I think it's a horrible name. I think of classical music, classic cars, and anything that smells of belonging in a museum (stationary, old, idle, doesn't move, better looked at than used). Why do we need it? I am totally fond of action and action2. Why does having the departure of Shale instigate nomenclature madness? :-) Struts Action Framework is actually a very professional title and I prefer we keep it as is. Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/28/06, Michael Jouravlev wrote: > Also, hoping not to hijaack this thread I would suggest coming up with > codenames for 1.x and 2.x codebases. If we were to do that, the obvious choices would be Classic for 1.x and Action for 2.x. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2ยข/min or less.
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
