I agree with deprecating older branches of 2.x and with the proposed versioning scheme.
As far as the name goes, that's a tough call. I'd stick with Struts 2 until the API is changed in a major way or we run out of version numbers. Struts 3 is possible, but just pushes the problem into the future. I agree that eventually a brand without a version would be good. How about WebWork? On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jeff Black <jeffrey.bl...@yahoo.com>wrote: > Good day Struts Developers: > > > I have enjoyed reading your conversation about the Struts brand. I believe > the "Struts" brand-name is one of the most valuable in the web-framework > space. > > > There is something comforting and reassuring to developers about the > simplicity of the "Struts" brand-name. In exactly the same fashion > developers know they can lean on Spring, they also know that they can count > on Struts to provide a tier-1 software solution. > > In my opinion, any pollution of the brand-name, over and above an > associated version number, would be a mistake. Kudos to everyone involved > in making the Struts brand what it is today. Please continue the good work! > > Best, > > @jeffblack360 > > > > ________________________________ > From: Martin Cooper <mfncoo...@gmail.com> > To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM > Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart: > >> 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen <rene.gie...@googlemail.com>: > >>> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want > >>> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call > >>> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other > >>> problems. Is a Struts 2 book good for learning Struts 3 (yes, not > >>> comparable to Struts 1 vs. Struts 2). What do people find at Google? > >>> Will they search for Struts 3, Struts 2 or both to find useful > >>> information (a lot of information for Struts 2 will still apply for 3). > >>> Do we need new Logos? And there is even more if you dig deeper, I > guess. > >> Struts 3 version 1.0.0.1 ;-) > > No, actually Struts 3 3.0.1.1 :) > > > > As I already said, I believe that if we counted right, we had already > > 3.1.x, upcoming would be 4.0.x - but starting from major three, we > > should IMO stay with consistent versioning following the said scheme. > >> Maybe just keep the brand Struts and distinct them base on version > >> number ? This follow the MAJOR.MINOR.... schema. > > Basically I'm with you on that. Most likely though, after releasing a > > Struts 3.0.0, people will coin the short term "Struts 3" within days. > > > > Also the problems mentioned in my last mail still remain - we once > > searched a way to distinct two different frameworks, namely Struts 1 vs. > > Struts 2. Struts 3.x will be in the Struts 2 framework line, and we will > > have to make this clear to users. Buying a Struts 1 book is no good for > > 3.x, Struts 2 is. Googling for Struts is bad, googling for Struts 2 is > > not. Is the "Struts power 2" logo retired and will it be replaced by > > just the good old Struts logo (also applies to the > > WebWork+Struts=Strusts 2 icon)? And so on... - we should try to think > > about all this beforehand and be very clear and well decided about our > > communication and branding. > > René is right, there's a great deal involved in the apparently simple > act of moving from 2 to 3. > > Back in mid-2005, when the discussions around the next generation of > Struts were just getting underway, we called it Struts Ti (for > Titanium). That let us get on with making the much more important > technical decisions before we hashed out what the heck to call the > thing, and why. Eventually we called it Struts 2, but that was as much > a branding decision as anything else; it's not clear that was the > right decision, either, looking back on it now. > > A naming change from Struts 2 to Struts 3, Struts NG or basically > anything that's no longer Struts 2 will send a signal to the community > that the changes are of the same magnitude as those between Struts 1 > and Struts 2. That is, it's not compatible, and it's not clear that > it's the same framework, but we like the Struts name too much to give > it up. My feeling is that we shouldn't make such a decision without > very careful thought to all of the implications, large and small, as > René has suggested. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > - René > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org >
