At 5:24 PM -0800 3/21/04, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
I think the presentation-tier-independent things about Tiles (like mapping
forwards to definitions) should be built in to the core, so there isn't any
such thing as a separate TilesRequestProcessor (or a separate chain or
whatever). In turn,
Quoting Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 5:24 PM -0800 3/21/04, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
I think the presentation-tier-independent things about Tiles (like mapping
forwards to definitions) should be built in to the core, so there isn't any
such thing as a separate TilesRequestProcessor
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change things around later.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 20, 2004 9:44 PM
To: Struts Developers List
Subject: Re: branching 1.2 and 1.3
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change things around later.
The problem is that is that we already have the simplest thing. And, if we want
multiple Maven-based products with
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change things around later.
The problem is that is that we already have the simplest thing. And, if
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change things around later.
The problem is that is
Martin Cooper said:
...
Another thought on this. When we get to Struts 2, I'd like to see us
remove all of the JSP-ness of Struts from the core, and also add some
degree of support for other presentation technologies, such as XSLT and
Velocity. So, instead of having 'taglib' where it is in the
At 10:55 AM -0800 3/21/04, Martin Cooper wrote:
I see little advantage of all those separate repos over just one repo,
since that one repo could be organised in exactly the same way. In other
words, why use separate repos over something like this:
I was trying to figure out what people meant by
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:05:44 -0800, Nathan Bubna wrote:
Martin Cooper said:
..
Another thought on this. When we get to Struts 2, I'd like to see
us remove all of the JSP-ness of Struts from the core, and also
add some degree of support for other presentation technologies,
such as XSLT and
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:55:00 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
I am now leaning towards 3 repos myself:
struts-legacy
This is our current repo, renamed. I don't really care for this
name, but I can't think of anything better right now, and I hate
sticking numbers in repo names,
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:50:27 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
Incidentally, where would Tiles land in all of this? In theory,
it's not tied to JSP, but rather to Servlets, so it might be
applicable to some other presentation technologies, but clearly not
all.
Yes, it might be a good idea to
Quoting Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change things around later.
The problem is that is
Quoting Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Ted Husted wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:07:28 -0800, Steve Raeburn wrote:
Option 1 works for me. Simplest thing that could possibly work. As
you've said, we can always change
Ted Husted wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:55:00 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
I am now leaning towards 3 repos myself:
struts-legacy
This is our current repo, renamed. I don't really care for this
name, but I can't think of anything better right now, and I hate
sticking numbers in
I'm all for creating a 1.2.x branch so that work can begin on 1.3.x on
HEAD, but I'm firmly against creating that branch on HEAD right now.
I'm convinced. I'm not in a big hurry -- but I'm glad we're having
this discussion.
Commons Chain is still in the sandbox. I feel very strongly that we
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:32:40 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:
If people want to start on 1.3.x, then I'd suggest we all pitch in
and try to get 1.2.1 in shape for release ASAP.
Works for me. There are a couple of tickets with patches that I can try tonight.
If there's anything else on your
Quoting Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote:
I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of
the HEAD as 1.3.
IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the
Struts-Chain RequestProcessor is to get it out there as
- Original Message -
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:09:53 -0500
To: Struts Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: branching 1.2 and 1.3 and CVS reorg for TLP status
snip /
Meanwhile, I would have no problem with calling for a VOTE on Commons Dev
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Quoting Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote:
I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of
the HEAD as 1.3.
IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the
--- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote:
I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of
the HEAD as 1.3.
IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the
Struts-Chain RequestProcessor is to get it out there as
I don't think there will be much actual moving involved. It's all the same machine.
I believe it's just a matter of someone with sysadmin karma renaming things. If you
check the Ant CVS, you'll see they have everything since the dawn of time.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/
There are
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Joe Germuska wrote:
At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote:
I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of
the HEAD as 1.3.
IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the
Struts-Chain RequestProcessor is to get it out there as the
22 matches
Mail list logo
