struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dakota Jack <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Confirm the Struts Action Library 1.3.0 release plan
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:05:55 GMT
For my part, I don't think haste because things are late is a good idea.  Do
it right and have a good product.

On 2/15/06, Ted Husted <> wrote:
> On 2/14/06, Paul Benedict <> wrote:
> > Is it the intention of the Struts commiters to
> > make a Command something like a new Action that should be used instead?
> > Or are you expecting commands to be created solely for the request
> processor chain?
> Some people have suggested that Command replace Action, and we are
> encouraging people to explore that avenue to see how well it works.
> Personally, I favor using Commands the way WebWork/Action2 uses
> Interceptors and leaving Action as a "place to stand" on the web
> layer.
> Our intent has been to make a numbered build available so that we can
> get more input from other Struts developers.
> > If it is the second, then I stand by my suggestion that ActionContext
> should be renamed
> > to reserve the name (ProcessorActionContext?) for the day when you want
> actions to
> > receive an ActionContext like WebWork.
> :) There are any number of naming quirks in Struts Action 1.x, and I
> don't know if one more is going to make a difference. :)
> The 1.3.x series has been cooking for about 18 months now (since the
> summer of 2004), and some people are already using it in production. I
> think if we do not get something rolled this week, a few us might
> burst into flames. That doesn't mean 1.3.0 will go GA, and it doesn't
> mean that we can't make significant API changes before 1.3.x goes GA.
> But, it does mean more people will look at what we've done so far.
> If we did decide to rename a member for future use, we could copy it
> and deprecate the old one for a milestone, and then remove the old
> one. But, since the ActionContext has been in the nightly build for
> many, many months, we should not just change it willy-nilly. Once we
> get a numbered build out there, I'm sure that there will be many more
> comments like this. If there is interest, we can regroup and make any
> desirable changes in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 and so forth. In the past, we
> have deprecated and removed and released new members during a beta
> cycle, and I expect we wil do so again.
> The other important thing is that once we roll the seven 1.3.0 builds,
> we can make internal changes to Action without re-releasing the other
> six, if the external API doesn't change.
> I would tend to agree that we need two flavors of Context available
> during the request/response cycle. One for the Actions and Commands to
> use internally, and another for server pages (including Velocity
> templates) to read externally. Perhaps we could just adopt the
> Velocity Tools for that, and expect that tags to get everything they
> need from a "tool" passed through the request.
> *
> But, before getting into anything like that, we should roll the 1.3.0
> builds, so that we can start making lighter releases.
> I didn't have any discretionary time last night, but, hopefully, I can
> wrap up the review of the Release Notes tonight. We can then tag the
> repository for STRUTS_1_3_0 as well as for each of the subprojects
> (STRUTS_ACTION_1_3_0 ... STRUTS_TILES_1_3_0), and take it from there.
> -- HTH, Ted.
> **
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

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