On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> Martin does this sound good to you? I think going with just core is a
> safe option.
I have no problem with it. I just want to make sure everyone
understands, and is on board with, exactly what we're doing before we
do it.
--
Martin Coope
Martin does this sound good to you? I think going with just core is a
safe option.
musachy
//when is gmail going to realize that no...I meant "musachy" not "mustache" :)
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> The xwork module are core, plugins and showcase. It was only recen
You would move it here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk/xwork/
Paul
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> we are all now in the same page right? (meaning we agree to move xwork
> under http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk/)
>
> musachy
>
The xwork module are core, plugins and showcase. It was only recently
that xwork was broken up and I think it was meant to make things more
manageable. Personally, my vote is for #2 as well. If we need to make
xwork-specific plugins or continue building the xwork showcase, then
we can move those ov
Well, I would like to hear from Rene or Rainer about #2
"2) (a) all of XWork, (b) just the XWork core, (c) some other subset of XWork"
To be honest I don't even know what the other stuff is(I vaguely
remember something about plugins for xwork), I think we should go with
b) just core.
On Fri, Jan
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> we are all now in the same page right? (meaning we agree to move xwork
> under http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk/)
We don't have an answer to #2 yet (I saw opinions for both a and b),
but we have answers to #1 and #3, s
we are all now in the same page right? (meaning we agree to move xwork
under http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/struts2/trunk/)
musachy
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> yes I meant under struts2, sorry for the confusion
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Martin Coop
yes I meant under struts2, sorry for the confusion
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
>> What we have been talking about and (vaguely) mentioned before is to
>> move it under /struts/trunk/xwork
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, t
is it possible if we talk struts3, we put REST as default main feature,
outside new Apache Xwork
F
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
>> We need to get past this. Where it lives does *not* have an impact on
>> whether it's built together with, or separately from, the rest of S2.
>> It can stay where it is and also be buil
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> We need to get past this. Where it lives does *not* have an impact on
> whether it's built together with, or separately from, the rest of S2.
> It can stay where it is and also be built along with, and released as
> part of, S2. There are mul
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I agree with Wendy.
>
> XWork is currently located here:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/xwork/
>
> I advocate its move to here:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/xwork/ (doesn't exist)
>
> PS: The one caveat is if XWor
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
>> What we have been talking about and (vaguely) mentioned before is to
>> move it under /struts/trunk/xwork and make it a module just like core
>> is, so the release is coupled to the stru
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> What we have been talking about and (vaguely) mentioned before is to
> move it under /struts/trunk/xwork
Unless I'm mistaken, that is _not_ where you want to move it. You want
it under 'struts2', don't you?
Today it is here:
http://svn.ap
I agree with Wendy.
XWork is currently located here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/xwork/
I advocate its move to here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/xwork/ (doesn't exist)
PS: The one caveat is if XWork really is valuable and would make it
good in a theoretical Struts 3
one small point I forgot to mention. If we do it this way we won't get
more folks complaining about struts not building because of a recent
change in xwork. It will make it easier for the dev making a release
and for people building from trunk.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> What we have been talking about and (vaguely) mentioned before is to
> move it under /struts/trunk/xwork and make it a module just like core
> is, so the release is coupled to the struts release and everything can
> be built easily
I agree.
What we have been talking about and (vaguely) mentioned before is to
move it under /struts/trunk/xwork and make it a module just like core
is, so the release is coupled to the struts release and everything can
be built easily
musahcy
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Fri,
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> just to close this, is anyone opposed to moving xwork under the struts
> dir as a maven module?
Uh, it's already under the 'struts' dir as a Maven project.
In the context of the options I listed before, you appear to want:
1) (a), althou
lement et n'aura pas n'importe
quel effet légalement obligatoire. Étant donné que les email peuvent facilement
être sujets à la manipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:54:46 -0800
> Subject: Re: XWork has landed!
just to close this, is anyone opposed to moving xwork under the struts
dir as a maven module?
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> 2010/1/6 Musachy Barroso :
>>> Really? I haven't seen much discussion since I posted what I believe
>>> is the set of alternatives that we need to c
2010/1/6 Musachy Barroso :
>> Really? I haven't seen much discussion since I posted what I believe
>> is the set of alternatives that we need to choose from. I saw quite a
>> few different opinions expressed, almost all in different terms (which
>> is why I posted what I did), but I'm not sure I sa
hum, that's what i understood mot people wanted from our original
discussion and the last time we talked about this. It keeps xwork
independent (well sort of) and it will be part of the same release
process.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM, M
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
> I think the agreement is to move it under the struts trunk and make it
> a maven module, like core.
Really? I haven't seen much discussion since I posted what I believe
is the set of alternatives that we need to choose from. I saw quite a
f
I think the agreement is to move it under the struts trunk and make it
a maven module, like core.
musachy
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> 2009/12/28 Paul Benedict :
>> My fault for not being clear. I was intending to say XWork should be a
>> "child module" (in the Maven s
2009/12/28 Paul Benedict :
> My fault for not being clear. I was intending to say XWork should be a
> "child module" (in the Maven sense) so it's actually part of Struts2
> build and versioning process.
Any news? I would like to start some refactoring in Xwork and it will
be nice to know where we
Great News! Thanks Martin
Happy Holidays,
René
Martin Cooper schrieb:
> As many of you have no doubt noticed already, I've checked in the
> XWork code base, and added the Apache License 2.0 headers. The new
> XWork tree is here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/struts/xwork/
>
> I have *not*
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> Having XWork as a separate module is actually preferred, but only
>> because it's a better design decision. It will create a clear
>> separation of concerns within the code base. Now
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 15:10
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: Re: XWork has landed!
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Wes Wannemacher
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul B
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> Having XWork as a separate module is actually preferred, but only
>> because it's a better design decision. It will create a clear
>> separation of concerns within the code base. No
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Having XWork as a separate module is actually preferred, but only
> because it's a better design decision. It will create a clear
> separation of concerns within the code base. Now with that said, XWork
> should be a *child* module of Struts
Having XWork as a separate module is actually preferred, but only
because it's a better design decision. It will create a clear
separation of concerns within the code base. Now with that said, XWork
should be a *child* module of Struts -- not a separate release.
Paul
-
I thought we had reached consensus on this back in August:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Let%27s-kill-xwork-%28was-Re%3A-2.1.8-release-%29-p24966742.html
-Dale
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org
For additi
I am ok with "moving" it to under struts as a module, to make it part
of the release, so we don't have to release it (and vote!) as a
separate artifact.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
>> If no one objects, i can t
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Wes Wannemacher wrote:
> If no one objects, i can take a stab at taking care of this tonight...
I guess I sort of object, unless I'm the only one without a full and
clear picture of the fate of this new code base that we own. I think
we need to make sure we're al
If no one objects, i can take a stab at taking care of this tonight...
I haven't looked much at Martin's check-in, but we only need to port
the xwork-core artifact... So, my plan would be to copy the source to
the struts2 folder as a first-class sub-project (adding it to the
modules section of the
Are we going to rename the maven artifact names and package names for 2.2?
musachy
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> I recommend we immediately SVN tag or branch the initial check in so
>> it can be refactored appr
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I recommend we immediately SVN tag or branch the initial check in so
> it can be refactored appropriately.
I'm not sure I see a need to do that, given that we can create a tag
or branch from a specific revision at any time. However, if you
I recommend we immediately SVN tag or branch the initial check in so
it can be refactored appropriately.
Paul
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Lukasz Lenart
wrote:
> 2009/12/27 Martin Cooper :
>> As many of you have no doubt noticed already, I've checked in the
>> XWork code base, and added the
2009/12/27 Martin Cooper :
> As many of you have no doubt noticed already, I've checked in the
> XWork code base, and added the Apache License 2.0 headers. The new
> XWork tree is here:
Hurra!!! Thanks a lot!
Regards
--
Lukasz
http://www.lenart.org.pl/
-
woot! thanks Martin and Rene for getting this done.
musachy
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> As many of you have no doubt noticed already, I've checked in the
> XWork code base, and added the Apache License 2.0 headers. The new
> XWork tree is here:
>
> http://svn.apache.
41 matches
Mail list logo
