struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ganeshbabu...@gmail.com
Subject Re: Struts 3 package name
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:36:21 GMT
My thoughts its a good way to keep a separate package name ? One question  Do the S3 architecture
 will change ?
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org>
Sender: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:17:34 
To: Struts Developers List<dev@struts.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <dev@struts.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Struts 3 package name

Using the Shade plugin is an option as long as I can shade everything
appropriately. I don't know if that's a really good choice as opposed to a
separate package name.

Paul

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
<mcucchiara@apache.org>wrote:

> Before reading Lukasz's message [1], probably I would have said that
> changing the package name to struts3 would have been a good idea.
> After all, many Apache Commons projects have chosen this schema.
> As you know, you can use two versions of commons lang without experiencing
> any problem.
> However, I think that it would be really hard for a big framework like
> Spring or Struts.
> Presumably, they will use the same entry points (like web
> filters/listeners, xml files, classpath scanner, etc) and it couldn't be
> very easy to isolate two version of the same framework.
>
> You can always count on package relocation via Maven Shade Plugin [2]
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> [1] http://goo.gl/o1cfF
> [2] http://goo.gl/a33wN
>
> Twitter     :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> G+          :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
> Linkedin    :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
> VisualizeMe: http://vizualize.me/maurizio.cucchiara?r=maurizio.cucchiara
>
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
>
> On 18 March 2013 17:11, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I professionally work on a huge project where S1 is used everywhere. The
> > best upgrade path for us is to put S2 in the web container, write new
> > actions in S2, and convert the old S1 actions during maintenance. This
> > scheme is only possible because S2 uses a different package name.
> >
> > If S3 is going to be a better S2, I can't recommend to my boss moving to
> S3
> > if the package name is not "struts3". I need that separate package name
> to
> > make incremental migration possible.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>

Mime
View raw message