Jason +1 man - someone with sanity here! Folks - as I said in my earlier email, take a step back and think a second.
For those who are angry / forking / leaving / pissed off / bitching / whinging - have you honestly actually LOOKED at the Xwork source yet? HINT: There are some REALLY COOL things there! It's simpler! Better even! So let's work together to solve everyone's problems, with the new improvements - rather than fork? -mike PS ThreadLocals is a small issue in the context of the larger improvements and it will get sorted out! On 13/1/03 6:04 AM, "Jason Carreira" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) penned the words: > I'm not sure I see the disconnect here. What's so different about Xwork? Views > can still be JSP / Velocity / XSLT which generates HTML. It's still a great > framework for web app development. If the ThreadLocal thing is the only > sticking point, then lets talk about that. I'm personally for the changes > Patrick made, as I think it makes the framework much more flexible. For > instance, you could queue actions using JMS with all of the context (the > ActionInvocation, or whatever Patrick has named it) carried along. However, > that said, if it's such a big deal that people are talking about forking the > code base and splitting Xwork and Webwork, then I think we should roll it back > and discuss. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: matt baldree [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 10:18 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Reflection >> >> >> I think there are two directions here and I don't see any >> easy resolution at this stage. So, yes I think two projects >> make sense. My next question is "Is there room for these two >> projects at OS?" Does it make sense or will it be a >> distraction since they do have overlap? Should WW move back >> out on its own? >> >> -Matt >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rickard �berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 7:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Reflection >> >> >> Erik Beeson wrote: >>> Rickard, as I understood, XWork was to break away from J2EE, hence >>> removing "web" from the name. If new versions with strong >> web ties are >>> going to remain, shouldn't they remain under the original WebWork >>> name? >> >> That is something I wanted to gauge by my last couple of >> emails. I personally do not believe (at this point) that >> making the web part "optional" is going to work very well. I >> certainly don't believe that it is going to be feasible, or >> even a good idea, to make a framework that allows code to be >> written for both Swing and the web. They're different beasts >> with different requirements, with completely different >> thinking behind how code gets written. We have a lot of Swing >> code in our project, and when I look at it I simply don't see >> how something like XWork would fit in, or why it would be useful. >> >> What *is* useful is to allow actions to be called without a >> servlet environment, but more or less *only* for >> testing/debugging purposes. Executing actions as a response >> to asynchronous messages could work too. But that's about it. >> I do not believe that actions (except for maybe 1% of special >> cases) can be reused in so different spaces. I remain open to >> the *possibility* of it, but so far I just haven't seen it. >> >> So, given all of this, my resignation from XWork still holds. >> The requirements that have been voiced the last few days are >> not mine, and I don't think they're compatible with my goals, >> at least not without serious compromises that will only hurt >> the end result. The question then becomes: would it be useful >> to do *both* XWork and WebWork, but as separate projects with >> these different goals? >> >> /Rickard >> >> -- >> Rickard �berg >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Senselogic >> >> Got blog? I do. http://dreambean.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: >> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 >> See! http://www.vasoftware.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.NET email is sponsored by: >> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something >> 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensymphony-webwork mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
