If we name the Java package "org.apache.struts3", we will keep a migration path open for *both* S1 and S2. The perspective we should have, I think, is that we are one of many front-end technologies and it's *necessary* for multiple versions of Struts to be used at the same time. Even if it is not necessary for small projects, it makes adopting Struts 3 easier in large organizations because we are allowing incremental migration.
Paul On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Lenart <[email protected]>wrote: > 2013/3/18 Paul Benedict <[email protected]>: > > 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? > > Argh... I thought that this is clear now... and I'm thinking and > thinking about that and your point is valid. Basically with package > renaming to o.a.struts we will close the migration path for all S1 > based projects. > > So maybe we should return to S2.5 concept and set it up as middle step > to S3 and beyond? > > > Regards > -- > Łukasz > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
