I like your analogy, however I disagree with the following:
> Core Struts people are moving to JSF/Shale ...
That's not true for everyone. The whole reason Shale is not Struts
2.0 in the first place is that a majority of the Struts leadership
decided that JSF should not be the future direct
On 3/23/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> In the above you say you will "try again" to explain this. I have no
> recollection that you ever tried to explain it to me before.
It was in the other longer thread :)
> > Core Struts people are moving to JSF/S
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/23/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In order to be able to offer something
reasonably state of the art, the Struts community is basically
abandoning the Struts 1.x codebase and inviting the Webwork people in.
The Webwork 2.2 codebase then gets rechri
(caveat: it's a joke, i have no actual emotional investment in cars or
any other childish "my X is better than yours" manifestation)
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
>Do you care that Pontiac GTO is actually a
>Holden Monaro, which is heavily based on Opel Omega?
>
GODAM HERESY
http://www.holden.co
On 3/23/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to be able to offer something
> reasonably state of the art, the Struts community is basically
> abandoning the Struts 1.x codebase and inviting the Webwork people in.
> The Webwork 2.2 codebase then gets rechristened "Struts Action
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Now we're leaving empiricism for speculation.
> No, because the above propositions can, in principle, be put to an
> empirical test.
If it _hasn't_ been put to an empirical test then it's speculation.
> Obviously, it is completely natural to w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
George Dinwiddie wrote:
Scott Adams has made his fortune displaying the cynical view of managers
that you describe. Indeed, from the point of view of the technical
staff or others with limited access to those managers, it often looks
like d
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> George Dinwiddie wrote:
> > There are many companies using Struts for far
> > more important things than simple websites. I believe that many of
> > these companies would be unwilling to trust Struts for
> > these uses if
> > the project were to greatly open up the co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
First of all, pPeople seem to be addressing things I never said. For
example, I don't think I ever said that people should be allowed to
commit _anonymously_. I simply said that I believed you could
be quite
liberal about granting commit privi
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> First of all, pPeople seem to be addressing things I never said. For
> example, I don't think I ever said that people should be allowed to
> commit _anonymously_. I simply said that I believed you could
> be quite
> liberal about granting commit privileges to people an
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to
delete obviously false informati
Ted Husted wrote:
On 3/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I, for one, would never recommend to any business enterprise that they
use Struts for important applications if the source was not vetted and
controlled by a small, trusted committee. Your needs may not have such
requirements
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> > On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>>Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to
> >>>delete obviously false information. It'
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to
delete obviously false information. It's just as easy to reintroduce
it. Keeping the worst of the cruft out is pretty
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to
> > delete obviously false information. It's just as easy to reintroduce
> > it. Keeping the worst of the cruft out is pretty much a full-time
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
I revert to my statement that a version repository makes it
quite easy
to restore the code to any point it was at in the past.
In any case, consider some potential bad consequence of letting just
about anybody commit:
1. On occasion, people
On 3/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I, for one, would never recommend to any business enterprise that they
> use Struts for important applications if the source was not vetted and
> controlled by a small, trusted committee. Your needs may not have such
> requirements for trustworth
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> I revert to my statement that a version repository makes it
> quite easy
> to restore the code to any point it was at in the past.
>
> In any case, consider some potential bad consequence of letting just
> about anybody commit:
>
> 1. On occasion, people start committ
18 matches
Mail list logo
