As long as it can be referenced as an individual component, I'm not super-concerned about what it's called.
I agree we need to preserve its utility outside of web-related things, though. (I actually *did* use it for a non-web thing once.) Dave 2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <[email protected]>: > 2011/11/29 Dave Newton <[email protected]>: >> Then we shouldn't be merging it into the S2 code base to begin with, IMO. >> >> Moving it to a top-level project would require incubation etc., I'm >> not convinced it's worth it for a component lightly-used outside of >> S2. > > I just remember discussion about leaving XWork alone and not to > integrate it into S2 code base - moving classes, dropping xwork-core > and so on... > XWork as a command pattern base project, not connect to WWW, should be > keep separately, if not, we should consider merging its code base into > S2. > > And as I understand incubation is mostly needed to clear license > related issues and rights. > >> Another alternative would be to do the restructuring internal to S2, >> keeping it separated as we already want, then promoting it to a TLP >> when (and if) it seems reasonable, out of s2. >> >> With that in mind, it doesn't make sense to rename it to o.a.s2.xw2, >> but rather o.a.xw2, but leave it in the S2 codebase until it's been >> revamped. > > But from other side, we had the same situation some time ago (when XW > was part of OpenSymphony) and it was pain in the ass, especially for > developers :/ > > So maybe just move it to o.a.s2.xwork and keep it clean. > > > Regards > -- > Łukasz > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ > Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
