struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rene Gielen <rgie...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Plan for Struts 3
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:15:49 GMT
I have to second Matt here. Even though Struts 3.x is about introducing
a platform for breaking changes, we should carefully consider what we
actually break.

The discussion seems to be a variation of "are we going for 2.5 or
3.0?". Since now there seems to be major support for going 3.0, all the
problems arise that have existed in the first place when we chose the
magic 2 both for package naming and branding.

That said, I'd vote for the following interpretation: From a higher
level, Struts 2 is a brand with the 2 pointing to an architectural
level. One could argue that we will be releasing version 3.x of the
Struts 2 architecture. That said, it won't be too confusing if struts2
stays as part of the package naming where it was used so far. And if it
isn't confusing people, I see no real need to change it. Without an
obvious need to change naming, we should not do it and intentionally
break our users' code.

With XWork it is way around. Since XWork is now part of the Struts
project, com.opensymphony package names are really confusing. Though I
hate breaking changes as much as most of us do, I'm all for doing it
right now with the advent of Struts 3.x - that is, renaming it to
org.apache.struts.xwork. The clarification here is arguably worth the
pain we will cause users migrating to Struts 3.x.

- René

Am 27.11.12 23:59, schrieb Matt Raible:
> If it breaks backwards-compatibility, I'd suggest not doing it. I've always been impressed
with projects like Spring that've maintained backwards compatibility w/o making a breaking
change such as this.
> 
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Jeff Black <jeffrey.black@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Never mind.
>>
>> I suppose it makes sense to some extent; however I'm with Dave when it comes to incorporating
the version number in the package name.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Jeff Black <jeffrey.black@yahoo.com>
>> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 4:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: Plan for Struts 3
>>
>> Is it really necessary to alter the package name?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlenart@apache.org>
>> To: Struts Developers List <dev@struts.apache.org> 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 5:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: Plan for Struts 3
>>
>> 2012/11/22 Dave Newton <davelnewton@gmail.com>:
>>> How useful is the Struts 1 plugin?
>>
>> It's mentioned as a migration way for S1 projects, but we can drop
>> support for S1 in S3
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> -- 
>> Łukasz
>> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 

-- 
René Gielen
http://twitter.com/rgielen

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


Mime
View raw message