. september 2004 21:33
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
> CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
>
> You can also look at the whiteboard initially setup by Ted in
> contrib/struts-jericho/README.txt
>
. september 2004 21:33
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
> CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
>
> You can also look at the whiteboard initially setup by Ted in
> contrib/struts-jericho/README.txt
>
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 06:29:59 -0700 (PDT), David Graham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Either it could be developed with compatibility to existing JDK versions
> > and
> > keep everyone happy. or go with JDK 1.5 and my preferernce would be to
> > go to
> > JDK 1.5 and use all those favorite-new-fe
> Either it could be developed with compatibility to existing JDK versions
> and
> keep everyone happy. or go with JDK 1.5 and my preferernce would be to
> go to
> JDK 1.5 and use all those favorite-new-features.
In the past we have required the Java version that the Servlet spec
required. Why w
- Original Message -
From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:02 AM
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:10:43 +0100, Niall Pemberton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with what Vic said in this thread on the Servlet Spec issue - if
we
> > can take the S
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 01:10:43 +0100, Niall Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with what Vic said in this thread on the Servlet Spec issue - if we
> can take the Servlet version out of the equation so that any version can be
> plugged in to the core controller than that would be really goo
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:06:44 -0400, Frank Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ironic as it seems to myself to be saying it, I don't think I like the idea
> of Struts moving to newer spec/JDK versions just yet.
>
> Here at work, most of our development is now Struts-based, and much of it is
> mov
Message -
From: "Frank Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
> Ironic as it seems to myself
t;Anders Steinlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler hand
eply-To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:43:37
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:14:15 -0700, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:09:02 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It was once proposed that we "leap frog" Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4 for
> > Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to littl
> > Maybe the "whiteboard" area is good fot this...
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[E
ard
- Original Message -
From: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsWhiteboard
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Niall Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move mini
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
> CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
>
> > Struts has a r
uot;Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
> Maybe the "whiteboard" area is good fot this...
>
, then
lots
> of people could easily contribute
>
> Niall
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM
> Su
truts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be
some de
Doesn't a struts 2.x codebase need a roadmap first? Should there be
some defined goals? Should it implement the same apis as struts 1.x
so as to ease transition? Or should it be a whole new framework?
Somehow I think the latter would be ill received.
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:02:45 -0400, Ted Hust
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:43:37 +0200, Anders Steinlein wrote:
> Just want to throw in my voice here, as this is exactly what I've
> been thinking. I'm very pleased with Struts and use it on a daily
> basis and I would love to contribute, but I don't really have the
> itches or time to fully read up o
> > It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from
> > including this in my proposal to be forward looking on
> servlet 2.4 and
> > JSP 2.0 :-).
> >
>
> I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum.
>
> It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the
>
> > It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from
> > including this in my proposal to be forward looking on
> servlet 2.4 and
> > JSP 2.0 :-).
> >
>
> I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum.
>
> It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that the
>
>
> It's more than a thought ... I was about three keystrokes from
> including this in my proposal to be forward looking on servlet 2.4 and
> JSP 2.0 :-).
>
I'd love to see Servlet2.4 and JSP2.0 be the minimum.
It was mentioned before that several of the 'itches' that
the committers have rev
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:56:41 -0500, David Durham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
> > That would be a bad mistake. How many products do you know that have a 1.5
> > minimum requirement?
>
> If we're talking about Struts 2.0, it's not actually a product yet, so
> it's purely sp
James Mitchell wrote:
That would be a bad mistake. How many products do you know that have a 1.5
minimum requirement?
If we're talking about Struts 2.0, it's not actually a product yet, so
it's purely speculation.
I'm not saying move the 1.x branch to 1.5. I'm not even saying that you
*should*
uot;Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
> While you're at it, why not drop JDK 1.3? Consider movi
While you're at it, why not drop JDK 1.3? Consider moving to 1.5? Just
2 cents.
- Dave
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:54:12 +, Robert Leland
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 , 2.3
> +1, 2.4 - Since we seem to take 18mo between releases, (that's
> just the way it is) we may as well go for 2.4.
If anyone has an itch for 2.4, I'd suggest setting up a whiteboard in Contrib and
having
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 01:26:01 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> Given when (in the evolution of Java best practices) Struts was
> developed, I've been delighted at how long it has remained viable.
Absolutely. It well done well in the first instance, and has worked well ever since.
I'm still being t
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:31:27 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:14:15 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >ïI also suspect, given our track record :-), that re-engineering
> >ïStruts from scratch based on the latest platform APIs wouldn't take
> >ïmore time than a gr
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:14:15 -0700, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> I also suspect, given our track record :-), that re-engineering
> Struts from scratch based on the latest platform APIs wouldn't take
> more time than a gradual refactoring from the current code.
I sometimes wonder if not getting a clea
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:03:59 -0400, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:22:56 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote:
> >ïPerhaps we should have a similar justification for 2.3, but I guess
> >ïI feel like it's old enough now that "just because" is an OK reason.
>
> Why 2.3?
>
> (1)
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:22:56 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote:
> Perhaps we should have a similar justification for 2.3, but I guess
> I feel like it's old enough now that "just because" is an OK reason.
Why 2.3?
(1) It is preferred platform of active Struts developers.
(2) It is needed for certain en
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That justification doesn't cut it, for me at least. Based on our past
> behaviour, it's very likely that there will be something fairly stable
> that people can pick up as a nightly build long, long before the final
> release. That will likely still be lo
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:09 AM
> > To: 'Struts Developers List', 'Struts Developers List'
> > Subject: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re:
+1 to move base Servlet API to 2.3
-0 to moving to 2.4
At this point, I think we should be conservative and wait to make 2.4
the minimum until we can explain why we need it. If that happens
during the course of development, then fine, but if many users are
still using Servlet 2.3, then let's no
elopers List', 'Struts Developers List'
> Subject: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
> CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
>
> It was once proposed that we "leap frog" Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4 for
> Struts 2.x. B
ible on (almost) all
current application server ?
> I like your idea Craig. +1 for going to 2.4.
>
> -James
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:14 PM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: [
I like your idea Craig. +1 for going to 2.4.
-James
-Original Message-
From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 12:14 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles
+1
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 5:09 AM
To: Struts Developers List; Struts Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Move minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
It was once
+1 for 2.3. IMO, we should keep up with what most people are using and
not linger in legacy specs.
David
--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was once proposed that we "leap frog" Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to
> 2.4 for Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to little things
>
ve minimum to 2.3 (was Re: Changing how
CommonsMultipartRequestHandler handles text parameters?)
It was once proposed that we "leap frog" Serlvet 2.3 and go straight to 2.4
for Struts 2.x. But, I continually see references to little things people
could do better if our minimum were Se
42 matches
Mail list logo
