struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Benitez <steven.beni...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:33:04 GMT
I agree with deprecating older branches of 2.x and with the proposed
versioning scheme.

As far as the name goes, that's a tough call. I'd stick with Struts 2 until
the API is changed in a major way or we run out of version numbers. Struts 3
is possible, but just pushes the problem into the future. I agree that
eventually a brand without a version would be good. How about WebWork?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jeff Black <jeffrey.black@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Good day Struts Developers:
>
>
> I have enjoyed reading your conversation about the Struts brand.  I believe
> the "Struts" brand-name is one of the most valuable in the web-framework
> space.
>
>
> There is something comforting and reassuring to developers about the
> simplicity of the "Struts" brand-name.  In exactly the same fashion
> developers know they can lean on Spring, they also know that they can count
> on Struts to provide a tier-1 software solution.
>
> In my opinion, any pollution of the brand-name, over and above an
> associated version number, would be a mistake.  Kudos to everyone involved
> in making the Struts brand what it is today.  Please continue the good work!
>
> Best,
>
> @jeffblack360
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Martin Cooper <mfncooper@gmail.com>
> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Rene Gielen <rene.gielen@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > Am 18.10.11 00:45, schrieb Łukasz Lenart:
> >> 2011/10/18 Rene Gielen <rene.gielen@googlemail.com>:
> >>> We made "Struts 2" a brand, the basic question seems to be - do we want
> >>> to rebrand or not? If we do rebrand, I think the logical way is to call
> >>> it "Struts 3". But we have to be aware that this causes some other
> >>> problems. Is a Struts 2 book good for learning Struts 3 (yes, not
> >>> comparable to Struts 1 vs. Struts 2). What do people find at Google?
> >>> Will they search for Struts 3, Struts 2 or both to find useful
> >>> information (a lot of information for Struts 2 will still apply for 3).
> >>> Do we need new Logos? And there is even more if you dig deeper, I
> guess.
> >> Struts 3 version 1.0.0.1 ;-)
> > No, actually Struts 3 3.0.1.1 :)
> >
> > As I already said, I believe that if we counted right, we had already
> > 3.1.x, upcoming would be 4.0.x - but starting from major three, we
> > should IMO stay with consistent versioning following the said scheme.
> >> Maybe just keep the brand Struts and distinct them base on version
> >> number ? This follow the MAJOR.MINOR.... schema.
> > Basically I'm with you on that. Most likely though, after releasing a
> > Struts 3.0.0, people will coin the short term "Struts 3" within days.
> >
> > Also the problems mentioned in my last mail still remain - we once
> > searched a way to distinct two different frameworks, namely Struts 1 vs.
> > Struts 2. Struts 3.x will be in the Struts 2 framework line, and we will
> > have to make this clear to users. Buying a Struts 1 book is no good for
> > 3.x, Struts 2 is. Googling for Struts is bad, googling for Struts 2 is
> > not. Is the "Struts power 2" logo retired and will it be replaced by
> > just the good old Struts logo (also applies to the
> > WebWork+Struts=Strusts 2 icon)? And so on... - we should try to think
> > about all this beforehand and be very clear and well decided about our
> > communication and branding.
>
> René is right, there's a great deal involved in the apparently simple
> act of moving from 2 to 3.
>
> Back in mid-2005, when the discussions around the next generation of
> Struts were just getting underway, we called it Struts Ti (for
> Titanium). That let us get on with making the much more important
> technical decisions before we hashed out what the heck to call the
> thing, and why. Eventually we called it Struts 2, but that was as much
> a branding decision as anything else; it's not clear that was the
> right decision, either, looking back on it now.
>
> A naming change from Struts 2 to Struts 3, Struts NG or basically
> anything that's no longer Struts 2 will send a signal to the community
> that the changes are of the same magnitude as those between Struts 1
> and Struts 2. That is, it's not compatible, and it's not clear that
> it's the same framework, but we like the Struts name too much to give
> it up. My feeling is that we shouldn't make such a decision without
> very careful thought to all of the implications, large and small, as
> René has suggested.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> > - René
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>

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