Mailing-List: contact dev-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jak-struts-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@struts.apache.org
From: Jonathan Revusky <revusky@wanadoo.es>
Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 19:46:59 +0100
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <e04376$ouu$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <e03rfh$uh5$1@sea.gmane.org>
	 <20060325164046.50921.qmail@web32603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <8b3ce3790603250955m5c061052h1ffe263d17d241fe@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
In-Reply-To: <8b3ce3790603250955m5c061052h1ffe263d17d241fe@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 3/25/06, Paul Benedict <paul4christ79@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought
>>it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not
>>for the name? I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage,
>>but this entire process doesn't make any sense unless you're specficially
>>wanting to be rebranded as Struts.
>>-- Paul
> 
> 
> From a historical perspective, it might be worthwile to note that the
> process begin with a post that Patrick Lightbody made to the "Java Web
> Alignment Group", in which Patrick said that he would like to see
> WebWork "join forces" with another project. Don and I followed up with
> Patrick and Jason. Our initial discussions are archived here:
> 
> * http://opensource2.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/STRUTS2/Home
> 
> Whlie we were having these discussions, several other developers
> became active within  WebWork and also became WW committers. To
> include these people in the process, we broadened the incubator
> proposal and asked the other WW committers  if they wanted to sign on.
> 
> * http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@struts.apache.org/msg17308.html
> 
> Everyone choose to do so, and here we are.
> 
> -Ted.

Ted, none of what you say or link above provides a rationale for 
removing the string "webwork" from all package names.

If this sets well with the Webwork people, then I guess it really is 
their business. But I have been trying to imagine (obviously 
counterfactually) a situation where we would give FreeMarker to ASF -- 
and the very first thing done in the code is to excise the string 
"freemarker" from every last place, including n levels deep in package 
hierarchies.

You know, there has been a community that has existed for years. You had 
people who donated code, who partook in discussions of new features, 
submitted bug reports. Anybody who donated to the project in any given 
way could feel a sense that they contributed in some way to this. Why 
not leave a bit of the heritage of the product history there in the 
package naming convention at least? I think that's more fair to all the 
people who extended themselves -- however minimally -- to bring this 
body of work up to its current point. You leave something there that 
allows people to see that this is something that they (however minimally 
in some cases) contributed to. A lot of people put work into this and I 
think it would be better to show some respect for the history of this 
project that you are basically getting dropped in your lap.

Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/


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