Pat, you've made some very good points. My comments are inline... > I believe that the 1.x and 2.x lines are different in terms of > implementation, but not in what they do or their APIs (JSP tags, > interfaces, etc). That is enough justification that no name change is > necessary. The only thing that will propagate this identity crisis is if > a majority of 1.x users are truly unwilling to make the migration to > 2.x. If that is the case, I agree, it is pointless to give both products > the same name. >
And this is the impression I get. That many core people (people I highly respect such as Rickard, Dick and Hani) have no intent of moving off the ww1 platform. > I think the right thing to do, as Hani has said, is to _maintain_ 1.x. > By maintain, I would assume this means continuing to provide support, > documentation, bug fixes, and minor enhancements. It is important that > any chance in 1.x is brought to the 2.0 developer's attention so that we > can make the user experience of migrating from 1.x to 2.0 as painless as > possible. I disagree with providing minor enhancements. Doing so will provide no incentive for those users to migrate to 2.0. Being opensource, I can't control what people do. But if the official developers keep taking ww2 functionality and adding it to ww1, you have a problem. > > I would be curious to hear from other 1.x users besides Hani what their > thoughts are on this issue. I invite anyone that uses 1.x to please > email me (or the list) with your thoughts so that I can get a better > idea as how to maintain these two very different code lines. > > > However, I want to make it clear that, for the sake of users like > Wayland that are seeing a bit of an identity crisis, WebWork 2.x is > where all major enhancements and features will be built. And here is the biggest part of this identity crisis. As the official stance is that major enhancements go into ww2 while ww1 is just maintained for bug fixes, etc. That's not really the case is it? It's my opinion that we have 2 separate camps of developers working under the same umbrella of OpenSymphony->Webwork, but with no real co-operation. Until I see guys like Hani or Dick actively contributing to ww2, you can't convince me that you guys are all working from the same gameplan. > It would be irresponsible to both the 1.x and 2.x users to let the branches > > continue to diverge any more than they already have. True. What's going to happen in 5 more releases of ww1 when they encroach the magical 2.0 version number (you can change name to webwork-xp or something I guess ;) ? Wayland Chan email: wchanATtrekspaceDOTcom ---------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email account from http://www.trekspace.com Your Internet Virtual Desktop! ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
