struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Consolidate extras, EL, taglibs, and faces under 'action' (was Maven groupId and svn repo structure)
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:44:21 GMT
On 3/17/06, Don Brown <mrdon@twdata.org> wrote:
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> > On Fri, March 17, 2006 1:48 pm, Don Brown said:
> >> I might as well make this its own proposal:  I propose we consolidate
> the
> >> 'extras', 'el', 'taglibs', and 'faces' subprojects under the 'action'
> >> subproject.  We would keep the extensions as separate, but include them
> in
> >> the 'action' subproject meaning they will continue to share the same
> >> version
> >> number and release cycle.
> >
> > Just to see if I understand... There would be a single "Action" entity,
> > that contains all of these?  If you download "Action" you get extras and
> > el and taglibs, etc.?  In other words, what has been the case for some
> > time would still be the case, except that we call the entity "Action" as
> > opposed to "Struts".  Is that correct?  If so, definite +1 from me.
>
> Yes, but really, it wouldn't, from an end user perspective, be much
> different than now.  Currently, you have this Struts
> Library Distribution, or whatever it is called now, that contains all the
> extension jars in addition to the Action 1
> jar.  In this proposal, you'd still have that distribution to download,
> only now, you wouldn't have to worry about the
> version number of each component matching up.
>
> > think a very good one.  I recall there being a fair bit of concern
> raised
> > when the decision was originally made... if some of those concerns have
> > come to fruition, quite possibly because other things happened in the
> > intervening time (was the WW merger on the table when this was decided
> for
> > instance?) then reversing the decision makes sense.
>
> The subproject split was way before the WW merger, and IIRC, I was the one
> that did the original SVN moving arounds at
> ApacheCon two years ago.  The emergence of Action 2 changes things
> completely, and IMO, the reasons we split as we did
> aren't valid anymore.  I don't see it as much as a reversal, but a new
> evolution.  We are still keeping many of the same
> subprojects, just consolidating the Action 1-specific ones ahead of the
> Action 2 start.


I'm not sure that action2 "changes things completely", but it does introduce
a separate development path that needs to be accounted for.  I think that
leaves us with four main development "domains" (or whatever term you like
that implies grouping but does not imply hierarchy :-):

* Struts 1.x -- ongoing maintenance support of the 1.3 codebase
  (our users will string us up from the yardarms if this is not a
  first class notion in our minds)

* WebWork 2.x -- same thing for existing WW users (although this
  might legitimately stay at OpenSymphony?)

* Struts 2.x -- the endgame for the merger efforts

* Shale -- All the stuff around Shale (which, like Struts 1.x, is
  segregated in terms of source repository directory structure but
  has not actually been released in fine grained units (yet)).

I can certainly buy into release consolidation along these four paths.  That
being said, separating the source artifacts (and the binary jar files that
result from them) is still useful in terms of clearly articulating
dependencies *within* a particular release.  That becomes much more
important as we offer finer grained jar files that are optional but impose
their own external dependencies.


Don


Craig

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