Mailing-List: contact dev-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Message-ID: <0db701c44e2f$c10a8ca0$7eac2b52@DELL1800>
From: "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
References: <20040609135534.90F3090419@cmlapp12.siteprotect.com>
Subject: Re: struts-faces - which version of Struts
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:40:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This seems like a good plan - it only has three methods which are the same
in both classes and the old could call the new

Niall
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Holmes" <james@jamesholmes.com>
To: "'Struts Developers List'" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts


> The issue with the validator that prevents the struts-faces code from
> working with Struts 1.1 and CVS head is the removal of xxxx.ValidatorUtil
> and the creation of xxxx.util.ValidatorUtils.  Struts 1.1 use
ValidatorUtil
> and the CVS head uses util.ValidatorUtils.  The thing that could fix this
is
> to replace the ValidatorUtil class and just make it deprecated.  I believe
> it was that way for some time.
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Germuska [mailto:Joe@Germuska.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 8:35 AM
> To: Struts Developers List
> Subject: RE: struts-faces - which version of Struts
>
> At 11:00 PM -0400 6/8/04, James Holmes wrote:
> >Good question.  Depending on how long you've been paying attention to
> Struts
> >and the dev list in particular, you may know that things tend to move
> pretty
> >slow in the Struts development/release cycle world.  Mostly this is
because
> >the committers (I'm very guilty) stay extremely busy and have limited
time
> >to move things along.  You're posting patches and getting discussions
going
> >is a big help. Thanks for that.
> >
> >My cursory guess is that we create a branch and then possibly have the
> build
> >create two versions of struts-faces: a version for Struts 1.1 and a
version
> >for the CVS head.
>
> I'd agree with all of this except for the question about having the
> build make two versions.  That seems like unnecessary overhead.
>
> Can we just pick the date that the last nightly builds for
> struts-faces worked and start the FACES_STRUTS_1_1 branch there?
>
> I haven't absorbed all the details of the commons-validator problems
> yet either, but if there are problems with that, then might resolving
> those also get this straightened out without making the versions of
> struts-faces mutually incompatible?
>
> Joe
>
> -- 
> Joe Germuska
> Joe@Germuska.com
> http://blog.germuska.com
> "In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn
> back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place."
>     - Carlos Santana
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org