You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org> on 2013/03/18 17:11:08 UTC
Struts 3 package name
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?
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/20 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> Ah, well, the only unfortunate problem with calling it 2.5 is that you
> already have a 2.3. No one is going to realize you intend it as a half-jump
> release (like Tomcat 5.0 and 5.5). There will likely be confusion why a
> point release dropped so much support, but if we advertise in big bold
> letters that 2.5 is not backwards compatible, then perhaps the numbering is
> acceptable.
You are right, but it also will be a half-jump with introducing changes:
- remove deprecated plugins (JSF is in use as it turned out)
- remove deprecated code
- leave package name as is
- switch to Java 1.6
Really not so big changes as many of them were already announced to community
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
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Ah, well, the only unfortunate problem with calling it 2.5 is that you
already have a 2.3. No one is going to realize you intend it as a half-jump
release (like Tomcat 5.0 and 5.5). There will likely be confusion why a
point release dropped so much support, but if we advertise in big bold
letters that 2.5 is not backwards compatible, then perhaps the numbering is
acceptable.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > Don't you think it will raise questions (and eyebrows) why Struts 3 has a
> > struts 2 package name?
>
> That's why we should call it S2.5, in other words when package name
> remains unchanged it shouldn't be called 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
>
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> Don't you think it will raise questions (and eyebrows) why Struts 3 has a
> struts 2 package name?
That's why we should call it S2.5, in other words when package name
remains unchanged it shouldn't be called 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
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Don't you think it will raise questions (and eyebrows) why Struts 3 has a
struts 2 package name?
Paul
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/19 <ga...@gmail.com>:
> > My thoughts its a good way to keep a separate package name ? One
> question Do the S3 architecture will change ?
>
> No, it will be the same as S2. The plan is ti just remove deprecated
> parts and cleanup the code base
>
>
> 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
>
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/19 <ga...@gmail.com>:
> My thoughts its a good way to keep a separate package name ? One question Do the S3 architecture will change ?
No, it will be the same as S2. The plan is ti just remove deprecated
parts and cleanup the code base
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
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by ga...@gmail.com.
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 <pb...@apache.org>
Sender: paulus.benedictus@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 14:17:34
To: Struts Developers List<de...@struts.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Struts Developers List" <de...@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
<mc...@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 <pb...@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?
> >
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
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
<mc...@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 <pb...@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?
> >
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
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 <pb...@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?
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
Good point! If it is that easy, then sure.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > It's a good thought, but if you do that, then there's no incremental
> > migration path between S2 and S3.
>
> I don't know if is needed, as we just said that the S3 should be
> better S2 - migrating between them should be easy.
>
>
> 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
>
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> It's a good thought, but if you do that, then there's no incremental
> migration path between S2 and S3.
I don't know if is needed, as we just said that the S3 should be
better S2 - migrating between them should be easy.
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
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
It's a good thought, but if you do that, then there's no incremental
migration path between S2 and S3.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > If we name the Java package "org.apache.struts3", we will keep a
> migration
> > path open for *both* S1 and S2. The perspective we should have, I think,
> is
> > that we are one of many front-end technologies and it's *necessary* for
> > multiple versions of Struts to be used at the same time. Even if it is
> not
> > necessary for small projects, it makes adopting Struts 3 easier in large
> > organizations because we are allowing incremental migration.
>
> I rather thought about leaving o.a.struts2 as is, just cut out what is
> deprecated and old.
>
>
> 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
>
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/19 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> If we name the Java package "org.apache.struts3", we will keep a migration
> path open for *both* S1 and S2. The perspective we should have, I think, is
> that we are one of many front-end technologies and it's *necessary* for
> multiple versions of Struts to be used at the same time. Even if it is not
> necessary for small projects, it makes adopting Struts 3 easier in large
> organizations because we are allowing incremental migration.
I rather thought about leaving o.a.struts2 as is, just cut out what is
deprecated and old.
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
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
If we name the Java package "org.apache.struts3", we will keep a migration
path open for *both* S1 and S2. The perspective we should have, I think, is
that we are one of many front-end technologies and it's *necessary* for
multiple versions of Struts to be used at the same time. Even if it is not
necessary for small projects, it makes adopting Struts 3 easier in large
organizations because we are allowing incremental migration.
Paul
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>wrote:
> 2013/3/18 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> > 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?
>
> Argh... I thought that this is clear now... and I'm thinking and
> thinking about that and your point is valid. Basically with package
> renaming to o.a.struts we will close the migration path for all S1
> based projects.
>
> So maybe we should return to S2.5 concept and set it up as middle step
> to S3 and beyond?
>
>
> 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
>
>
Re: Struts 3 package name
Posted by Lukasz Lenart <lu...@apache.org>.
2013/3/18 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> 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?
Argh... I thought that this is clear now... and I'm thinking and
thinking about that and your point is valid. Basically with package
renaming to o.a.struts we will close the migration path for all S1
based projects.
So maybe we should return to S2.5 concept and set it up as middle step
to S3 and beyond?
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