struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Cooper <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.3.0 Release - Next Steps
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:25:16 GMT
On 1/11/06, Ted Husted <ted.husted@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/06, James Mitchell <jmitchell@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure where this ended up.
> >
> > Whether Resources is part of the jar in "extras" or not, I don't
> > think we should have a dependency on any called "extras".
> > "extra" (to me) means "optional".  Am I wrong on this?
>
> Who is the "we" that has a dependency?


I think the point is that we can't move Resources to Extras if the core is
going to depend on it.

--
Martin Cooper


AFAIK, the only subproject that
> depends on Extras is Apps, because the applications use some of the
> optional classes.
>
> If for some reason you don't like "Extras", we could just call it
> "Optional", like Ant does.
>
> The problem is that we have a class called "PlugIn", and there are
> things besides PlugIn classes that are optional, like the ever growing
> number of dispatch actions :)
>
> Another likely suspect could be that nutty ValidatorActionForm class
> that confues everyone at first. If it were in Extras, it would be
> clear which we consider to be the default.
>
> I think calling the package PlugIns woudl be confusing unless it only
> contained PlugIns. And if that package only contained PlugIns, then we
> would need another package for the other optional classes. 'm not sure
> if I see the value-add in having an eight dwarf :)
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message