So in your terms Struts 2 == SAF2. This does not tell me much ;-) Is it strictly WW2.x or anything starting from WW2.x codebase onwards? I guess the latter considering that "Struts 2 is represented by the repository head".
See, your definition is not clear enough for an end user while being too technical. Why would end users care about repository naming conventions? They download binaries and they read docs and articles, names should match there. I agree that javadocs should not mention a particular version unless it is important. Javadocs are tied to a particular release anyway. On 7/5/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having a system is usually a good thing. Perhaps it would help to define these terms, which I think many people use naturally. Struts 2 - The product represented by the repository head. Struts 2.x - The product that the repository head is becoming. Struts 2.0.0 - The version of the product we are working to release now. In general, I feel the documentation should avoid too many direct references to the product name. On the the last pass, I used "framework" as much as possible and SAF2 on occasion. Now, I would use Struts 2 wherever I was using SAF2 or SAF 2. -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]
