Ted Husted wrote:
STATUS so far
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
- WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
- webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
- ww: tag prefix -> a:
+1 Don Brown, Martin Cooper (bin
Gabe wrote:
I agree with Don and Paul. The webwork as dear to us as it may be should be
excised.
- Original Message
From: Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55:50 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
I
t; be excised.
>
> - Original Message
> From: Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Struts Developers List
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55:50 PM
> Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
>
> I am +1 with Don. If this community wants the name
I agree with Don and Paul. The webwork as dear to us as it may be should be
excised.
- Original Message
From: Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55:50 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
I am +1 with D
I am +1 with Don. If this community wants the name webwork, then I believe this
incubation shouldn't become Struts 2.0 -- because names are well-established
out
there and it's awkward to say it's Struts although the packages are webwork;
you might as well just make it Apache WebWork and allow Act
> However, I'm not OK with
> mixing webwork in with Action in with Struts. We need to make a decision,
> then move on.
Yes, and the decision was to bring in webwork under the Struts umbrella as
Struts Action 2... And that's the route we should follow :)
Let's get back to developoment and bring us
This starts to look to take more time than we should put into it. Though,
once again as Rainer said, if webwork represents and option and also ww,
than I would cast my +1 for these. Considering that the Struts umbrella was
chosen and not the apache one, I guess the package names should be something
If we used the 'webwork' name in the package, I think we should abandon the idea of this being the second major version
of Action. In my opinion, a project needs to have a name, a single name, which one uses to identify it. If we want to
bring WebWork in as a new Struts subproject, and that is
On 3/27/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PS: Can't we decide on this later if there is no consens now?
> Since this is a simple refactoring with subversion it should not hold up
> the incubation process for now...
+1
We can keep collecting input and decide sometime between now and
+1 to webwork - "org.apache.webwork" if thats allowed, otherwise
"org.apache.struts.webwork".
Niall
On 3/27/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey there,
>
> if webwork is an option as well, I would vote for org.apache.webwork :)
>
> The tag prefix ui: won't be my choice... There ar
Hey there,
if webwork is an option as well, I would vote for org.apache.webwork :)
The tag prefix ui: won't be my choice... There are plenty of non-ui tags
within webwork. So this would result in something like: ui:/nonui: and
this would be quite annoying for me...
Same with html: prefix... Yes,
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.action2
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
- WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
- webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
- ww: tag prefix -> a:/saf:
+1
I would also be +1 to:
- com.opensymphony.webwo
s Developers List
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 9:33:14 AM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
On 3/25/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulate
On 3/26/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/25/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulates my
> > > dissatisfaction with action2 -- it is possible to imagine a
> >
On 3/25/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/25/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulates my
> > dissatisfaction with action2 -- it is possible to imagine a
> > revolution from Struts 2 to Struts 3 which does not require
On 3/25/06, Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulates my
> dissatisfaction with action2 -- it is possible to imagine a
> revolution from Struts 2 to Struts 3 which does not require
> completely reorganizing the package structure, but if t
> I think there's something here. Certainly, Gabe articulates my
> dissatisfaction with action2 -- it is possible to imagine a
> revolution from Struts 2 to Struts 3 which does not require
> completely reorganizing the package structure, but if there's an
> "action2" package lying around, that
The reasoning behind this is:
1) action2/ti is really just another version so shouldn't be given a
package name based on the version (when we go version 3 code named
something else will we have to change the package names again?).
Thus, it should stay at org.apache.struts.
2) Webwork as discuss
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List ; Gabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33:55 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Gabe, the best argument, I see, behind an "action2" package is that
it's totally incompatible with the previous versio
ts that. (So, if
> xwork were brought
> over it might be called org.apache.struts.core, for example, and for swing,
> say,
> org.apache.struts.swing)
>
> Gabe
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
al Message
From: Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Struts Developers List
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:27:43 PM
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
STATUS so far
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
On 3/25/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of either, and in fact, I've already repackaged the code
> under org.apache.struts.action2, so if I had to pick, I'd pick the one
> that doesn't have me duplicating work :)
Me too (in favor of either), but the fact that several dev
On 3/25/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 ("saf" as default tag prefix). On the other hand, would be nice to
> have a taglib that can be used without Struts whenever possible.
> Therefore, "af" ;-)
The UI tags are the definately the "cat's meow".
It would be nifty if we could
On 3/25/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.action2
> - WebWork* classes -> Struts*
> - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
> - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
> - ww: tag prefix -> a:/
I'm in favor of either, and in fact, I've already repackaged the code
under org.apache.struts.action2, so if I had to pick, I'd pick the one
that doesn't have me duplicating work :)
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
STATUS so far
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebWork* cl
STATUS so far
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
- WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
- webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
- ww: tag prefix -> a:
+1 Don Brown, Martin Cooper (binding)
+1 Frank Za
Paul Benedict wrote:
Johnathan,
I don't see the necessity of a problem from within your viewpoint.
Struts 2.0 is going to be built from WebWork; I suppose you can
consider Struts 2.0 a fork of WebWork,
Well, it's not _really_ a fork. The main Webwork developers are coming
over here.
But i
Ted Husted wrote:
On 3/25/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought
it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not
for the name? I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage,
but this entire process do
Johnathan,
I don't see the necessity of a problem from within your viewpoint.
Struts 2.0 is going to be built from WebWork; I suppose you can
consider Struts 2.0 a fork of WebWork, because, unless I am unaware
of something here, this doesn't prevent other people from developing
WebWork if they wa
On 3/24/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming
> strategy proposal:
>
> - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
> - WebWork* classes -> Struts*
> - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
> -
On 3/25/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought
> it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not
> for the name? I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage,
> but this entire process doesn't make any
Paul Benedict wrote:
cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful
people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork"
and "ww" from all the code, isn't there?
Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name?
Well, at the marketing level, maybe. That this ne
>>cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful
>>people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork"
>>and "ww" from all the code, isn't there?
Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought
it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if no
Hubert Rabago wrote:
On 3/24/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will
someday see an Action3 and Action4 too.
But, regardless of what I think, I would suggest that we wait a few
days and give the other new committers a chance to
On 3/25/06, Ed Griebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good point about to type and is pretty specific.
>
> Also, the tinyurl link doesn't work.
Here's the long one
*
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/struts/sandbox/trunk/action2/apps/mailreader/src/webapp/pages/
And another try at a tiny one
* h
Good point about wrote:
> On 3/25/06, Rene Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I am
> > +1 for the package name 'org.apache.struts.action2'
> > +1 for tag prefix a
> > +1 for the other points of Don's proposal
>
> Of course, the tag prefix is something configured on a page-by-page
> basis. In
On 3/25/06, Rene Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I am
> +1 for the package name 'org.apache.struts.action2'
> +1 for tag prefix a
> +1 for the other points of Don's proposal
Of course, the tag prefix is something configured on a page-by-page
basis. In my own work, I might find "a" difficult
On 3/24/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, "Struts", "Struts Action 2", "ti" and "a" instead of "WebWork",
> "WebWork", "webwork" and "ww". New name system is definetely an
> improvent consistency-wise.
:)
"a:" was my suggestion. It'd only make sense paired with "Action 2"
and
On 3/24/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will
> someday see an Action3 and Action4 too.
>
> But, regardless of what I think, I would suggest that we wait a few
> days and give the other new committers a chance to chime in. Ian
>
Hi Guys,
I'd follow any naming strategy that the community has agreed upon.
Rene Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don,
see below:
Don Brown schrieb:
> Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming
> strategy proposal:
>
> - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.ap
Don,
see below:
Don Brown schrieb:
> Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming
> strategy proposal:
>
> - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
> - WebWork* classes -> Struts*
> - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
> - webwork. as
IMO we should keep the names as consistent as possible so my vote would go
for:
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.action2
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
- WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
- webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
- ww:
Don,
I think using Struts Ti on the one hand and Struts Action 2 on the other
as a name will lead to some confusion. Ti as a codename is great, but for
the codebase I would prefer Action2.
> - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
> - WebWork* classes -> Struts*
> - WebWork
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
+1 (non-binding) here. If I had my druthers I would have gone with
"saf", but "ti" works for me too, no objection.
I don't understand. Why not just use webwork if it comes to that, rather
than saf or ti. At least that acknowledges the heritage of the thing.
Jonathan
>>I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will
>>someday see an Action3 and Action4 too.
I hope I wasn't too brisk :-) But I prefer "action2" because it
describes what it is clearly, and I think you cannot dream up of a more
perfect package name. Names like "ti" or "saf" is toug
I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will
someday see an Action3 and Action4 too.
But, regardless of what I think, I would suggest that we wait a few
days and give the other new committers a chance to chime in. Ian
indicated a preference for saf, and the other new committers
So, "Struts", "Struts Action 2", "ti" and "a" instead of "WebWork",
"WebWork", "webwork" and "ww". New name system is definetely an
improvent consistency-wise.
I don't like "ti", but I think I have different reasons than Paul. On
the other hand, why should I care at all?
On 3/24/06, Paul Benedict
Oh no. Please don't call it ti. It makes perfect sense
to use the org.apache.struts.action2 package; that fits
perfectly with its name plus, it fits the spring framework
naming strategy (they have a hibernate and hibernate3 package).
But i think "ti" is a terrible name; don't settle for it.
--- Do
+1 (non-binding) here. If I had my druthers I would have gone with
"saf", but "ti" works for me too, no objection.
Frank
Don Brown wrote:
Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming
strategy proposal:
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebW
Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming
strategy proposal:
- com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti
- WebWork* classes -> Struts*
- WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2
- webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts.
-
50 matches
Mail list logo
