Before reading Lukasz's message [1], probably I would have said that changing the package name to struts3 would have been a good idea. After all, many Apache Commons projects have chosen this schema. As you know, you can use two versions of commons lang without experiencing any problem. However, I think that it would be really hard for a big framework like Spring or Struts. Presumably, they will use the same entry points (like web filters/listeners, xml files, classpath scanner, etc) and it couldn't be very easy to isolate two version of the same framework.
You can always count on package relocation via Maven Shade Plugin [2] Just my 2 cents. [1] http://goo.gl/o1cfF [2] http://goo.gl/a33wN Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara VisualizeMe: http://vizualize.me/maurizio.cucchiara?r=maurizio.cucchiara Maurizio Cucchiara On 18 March 2013 17:11, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote: > I professionally work on a huge project where S1 is used everywhere. The > best upgrade path for us is to put S2 in the web container, write new > actions in S2, and convert the old S1 actions during maintenance. This > scheme is only possible because S2 uses a different package name. > > If S3 is going to be a better S2, I can't recommend to my boss moving to S3 > if the package name is not "struts3". I need that separate package name to > make incremental migration possible. > > Thoughts? >
