I guess that's a question of definition, viewed in a historical perspective ;) But I do intend to keep actively maintaining it, and a few more people maintaining it would be very welcome!
Nils-H On 8/21/07, James Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for keeping the Portlet plugin in the core Struts 2 distribution and > project. Nils-H is actively maintaining it and I am > interested in maintaining it as well. > > James > > > On Tue Aug 21 1:43 , 'Nils-Helge Garli' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > > >I couldn't fint the portlet plugin mentioned on the list of plugins > >for the different tiers. Where does it fit in? > > > >As a plugin developer, I would definetively see it as a motivation > >having the "Struts 2" brand on the plugin. > > > >Nils-H > > > >On 8/20/07, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Makes sense to me. Would we bundle the second-tier plugins in our > >> release or just the first tier? Would second-tier plugins each get > >> their own release cycle, share one together, or be linked to the main > >> Struts 2 release cycle? > >> > >> Don > >> > >> On 8/20/07, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Hi all. > >> > > >> > I think the Spring framework has a great model for this kind of problem. > >> > They call it the "Spring portfolio" which is the Spring Framework > >> > (proper) > >> > and then subprojects for very special criteria (security, web services, > >> > etc.). We all know Spring is pretty good at integrating technologies, but > >> > not every technology has the "weight" to get first tier support. When it > >> > is > >> > lesser, they get maintained in the "Spring Modules" project. > >> > > >> > I think we could do the same thing here. Struts 2 could include only > >> > first-tier plugins that actually are part of the Struts release, but then > >> > have another Struts subproject that maintains other plugins. > >> > > >> > In case someone may bring up Shale and the old "umbrella" framework > >> > argument, I think my proposal is quite different. I am not proposing > >> > different frameworks and communities, but simply creating another Maven > >> > project under Struts for Struts plugins. > >> > > >> > Paul > >> > > >> > On 8/19/07, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Martin Cooper wrote: > >> > > > Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it's pretty much guaranteed that we would > >> > > lower > >> > > > the base of people who _could_ use them if they're not here. Some > >> > > companies > >> > > > (my current employer included) require approval for each and every > >> > > > open > >> > > > source component before it can be used within the company. > >> > > > >> > > FYI, I'm in the same boat where I am, and I know the hassles we go > >> > > through sometimes to get various libraries/components/whatever > >> > > approved, > >> > > so I definitely know where your coming from with this point. In > >> > > talking > >> > > to other folks, this doesn't seem to be unusual at all. > >> > > > >> > > > I disagree. I think it is just fine to distribute such code. If > >> > > > people > >> > > start > >> > > > to use it and have problems with it, then perhaps this will drive > >> > > additional > >> > > > contributors to it. Gaining additional contributors to it as part of > >> > > Struts > >> > > > seems much more likely to me than if it's off in the weeds somewhere. > >> > > > >> > > You mentioned the "...respected source such as the ASF" in the previous > >> > > paragraph, and I certainly agree. I think however that if the approach > >> > > was as you say, that potentially untested code, or more accurately code > >> > > not used to a great extent by active committers, which I believe is > >> > > what > >> > > Ted was talking about, was coming out of a respected ASF project, it's > >> > > not hard to imagine that respect declining when a lot of bug reports > >> > > are > >> > > opened for a particular plugin. One plugin could wind up ruining the > >> > > good reputation of the larger project. > >> > > > >> > > And if no one was maintaining and using that code to begin with, I > >> > > think > >> > > it's a bit of a gamble to hope someone will be spurred into action by > >> > > some negative feedback. Maybe someone will be, but I don't think > >> > > that's > >> > > a risk worth taking if you want to keep a good reputation and keep > >> > > being > >> > > a respected project :) > >> > > > >> > > I for one see Ted's suggestion as a good compromise... you could almost > >> > > in a sense view the external location, wherever that happens to be, as > >> > > something of a plugin incubator... assure the code has a community of > >> > > developers willing to maintain it and ensure it's at a level of quality > >> > > that fits in with the rest of the S2 distro proper, and *then* roll it > >> > > in to the distro later. For any plugin that there's any doubt about > >> > > today (and I don't know which those are), they can be shifted there and > >> > > allowed to grow that community. And if some never do, it's not the end > >> > > of the world: they're still there for anyone that wants them. > >> > > > >> > > To address the concern you raised about approvals, I think it would be > >> > > important to make the external location an endorsed source of plugins. > >> > > Maybe it makes more sense to have a plugins subproject under Struts, I > >> > > don't know, but whatever the case, so long as people understood that > >> > > yes, this plugin repository/incubator/whatever was *the* approved place > >> > > to get plugins from, I believe the approval process would be eased a > >> > > bit > >> > > for most users in that same situation as we are. > >> > > > >> > > At the end of the day, it's always said that an ASF project depends on > >> > > developers who themselves are using the code. It's supposed to be code > >> > > for themselves that they happen to share with others, that's how I've > >> > > come to understand the underlying concept anyway. If that's true, then > >> > > it seems like keeping code in S2 that might not be maintained and > >> > > actually used by active commutters is a contradiction of that, and > >> > > Ted's > >> > > suggestion offers a viable alternative that keeps the code alive, and > >> > > in > >> > > fact presents (possibly) a better chance for it to succeed. > >> > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Martin Cooper > >> > > > >> > > Frank > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Frank W. Zammetti > >> > > Founder and Chief Software Architect > >> > > Omnytex Technologies > >> > > http://www.omnytex.com > >> > > AIM/Yahoo: fzammetti > >> > > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > Author of "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology" > >> > > (2006, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-695-1) > >> > > and "JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects" > >> > > (2007, Apress, ISBN 1-59059-816-4) > >> > > Java Web Parts - http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net > >> > > Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it! > >> > > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > 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]
