I have to second Matt here. Even though Struts 3.x is about introducing a platform for breaking changes, we should carefully consider what we actually break.
The discussion seems to be a variation of "are we going for 2.5 or 3.0?". Since now there seems to be major support for going 3.0, all the problems arise that have existed in the first place when we chose the magic 2 both for package naming and branding. That said, I'd vote for the following interpretation: From a higher level, Struts 2 is a brand with the 2 pointing to an architectural level. One could argue that we will be releasing version 3.x of the Struts 2 architecture. That said, it won't be too confusing if struts2 stays as part of the package naming where it was used so far. And if it isn't confusing people, I see no real need to change it. Without an obvious need to change naming, we should not do it and intentionally break our users' code. With XWork it is way around. Since XWork is now part of the Struts project, com.opensymphony package names are really confusing. Though I hate breaking changes as much as most of us do, I'm all for doing it right now with the advent of Struts 3.x - that is, renaming it to org.apache.struts.xwork. The clarification here is arguably worth the pain we will cause users migrating to Struts 3.x. - René Am 27.11.12 23:59, schrieb Matt Raible: > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, I'd suggest not doing it. I've always > been impressed with projects like Spring that've maintained backwards > compatibility w/o making a breaking change such as this. > > On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jeff Black <jeffrey.bl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Never mind. >> >> I suppose it makes sense to some extent; however I'm with Dave when it comes >> to incorporating the version number in the package name. >> >> Just my two cents. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jeff Black <jeffrey.bl...@yahoo.com> >> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:50 PM >> Subject: Re: Plan for Struts 3 >> >> Is it really necessary to alter the package name? >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlen...@apache.org> >> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org> >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:35 AM >> Subject: Re: Plan for Struts 3 >> >> 2012/11/22 Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com>: >>> How useful is the Struts 1 plugin? >> >> It's mentioned as a migration way for S1 projects, but we can drop >> support for S1 in S3 >> >> >> Regards >> -- >> Łukasz >> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > -- René Gielen http://twitter.com/rgielen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
