You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com> on 2011/11/29 09:17:11 UTC
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Struts 3 should be version as follow:
- 3.0.0.1
- 3.0.1.1
- 3.1.0.1
- ....
?
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/12/1 Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>:
> I've been silently following this thread :-) Here's my take...
;-)
> It would be inappropriate to rename packages in a minor version bump. I
> just think that defeats expectations for normal upgrades since minor point
> upgrades should be compatible with current code. On the other hand, moving
> to version 3 signals quite the upgrade! I am in favor of neither.
>
> I would actually prefer we call it Struts 2.5 so that you can rename such
> packages and escape providing pure backwards compatibility. So keep
> org.apache.struts2 and do whatever else package refactoring you need.
Maybe you're right, I was too excited about new possibilities and
maybe we should do it in smaller steps, the same as you did with
Struts 1.x
Anyway, renaming and dropping some plugins are still top priority IMHO.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Paul Benedict <pb...@apache.org>.
I've been silently following this thread :-) Here's my take...
It would be inappropriate to rename packages in a minor version bump. I
just think that defeats expectations for normal upgrades since minor point
upgrades should be compatible with current code. On the other hand, moving
to version 3 signals quite the upgrade! I am in favor of neither.
I would actually prefer we call it Struts 2.5 so that you can rename such
packages and escape providing pure backwards compatibility. So keep
org.apache.struts2 and do whatever else package refactoring you need.
Paul
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Johannes Geppert <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 for René's version schema.
>
> But should we really rename the packages to org.apache.struts3?
> This breaks definitifly all external plugins.
>
> We should not put the Version Numer into the package names.
> What is the Brand of Struts 3? Struts?
> So we should use org.apache.struts again for the package names.
>
> -----
> web: http://www.jgeppert.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://struts.1045723.n5.nabble.com/Deprecate-2-1-version-tp4894635p5037818.html
> Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Johannes Geppert <jo...@apache.org>.
+1 for René's version schema.
But should we really rename the packages to org.apache.struts3?
This breaks definitifly all external plugins.
We should not put the Version Numer into the package names.
What is the Brand of Struts 3? Struts?
So we should use org.apache.struts again for the package names.
-----
web: http://www.jgeppert.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep
--
View this message in context: http://struts.1045723.n5.nabble.com/Deprecate-2-1-version-tp4894635p5037818.html
Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
> While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> hasn't come to any conclusion yet,
I agree, I had the same feeling
>I strongly disagree with the proposed
> versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
> see it as
>
> 3.0.0
> 3.0.1
> 3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
> 3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack release)
> 3.0.3
> ...
> 3.1.0 (Fabulous new features and all exciting stuff, but API stability)
> 3.1.1
> ...
>
> The forth number is only for rare cases, usually each released version
> consists of three numbers.
>
And I also agree with this versioning schema
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>:
> P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
> P2. Complete XWork subsumption.
Rename packages or something more ? Because I was planning to rename
packages before releasing 2.3.x, maybe even right now ;-)
> S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the list,
> on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
Would you collect all of them in one place (an issue) ?
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
To start with something
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WW/Struts3Planning
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>:
> I was thinking about S3 over the weekend. (Hmm, my habit of abbreviating S2
> hits a snag with S3) and had a few thoughts.
I would like to add one more thing, conversion mechanism of primitive
types (and wrappers) - eg. double conversion doesn't respect Locale
settings
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Steven Benitez <st...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Dave's points as well as the need to discuss type conversion
going forward.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, I'm good with branching now.
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
> <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to commons version (
> > http://commons.apache.org/ognl/)
> > So, what about if we add a new 3.x branch and start to put our effort in
> > this new one?
> >
> > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
> > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
> >
> > Maurizio Cucchiara
> >
> >
> > On 29 November 2011 18:03, Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of
> Guice)
> >> > with current Guice. Do I understand correctly?
> >>
> >> Yep. I'm also unsure of the amount of work required--I'm trying to dig
> >> in to it along with a related side project and just don't know yet.
> >>
> >> > Do you mean change the package naming from com.opensymphony to
> >> > org.apache.struts If yes, I agree.
> >>
> >> Yes, although I really want to keep the command pattern bit isolated
> >> from the web bits still. That's as simple as correct packaging,
> >> though.
> >>
> >> Along with that comes finding the code that XWork dupes, like some
> >> commons stuff, and replacing it. Some of that has already been done.
> >>
> >> > > S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the
> >> list,
> >> > > on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
> >> > Have you got some links handy? just some example to better understand
> >> what you mean.
> >>
> >> I don't, actually, but off the top of my head, things like the JR
> >> plugin make it difficult to make report files come from anywhere but
> >> the file system, because the compiled report lookup happens
> >> (relatively) deep within the result processing.
> >>
> >> Most problems like that are solvable with fairly trivial refactoring.
> >> This extends to some of the XWork stuff (I've brought up the type
> >> conversions before, as have others) and potentially a bit in
> >> S2-non-plugin code--still poking around.
> >>
> >> d.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
>
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
+1, I'm good with branching now.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Maurizio Cucchiara
<mc...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to commons version (
> http://commons.apache.org/ognl/)
> So, what about if we add a new 3.x branch and start to put our effort in
> this new one?
>
> Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
> Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
>
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
>
> On 29 November 2011 18:03, Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
>> > with current Guice. Do I understand correctly?
>>
>> Yep. I'm also unsure of the amount of work required--I'm trying to dig
>> in to it along with a related side project and just don't know yet.
>>
>> > Do you mean change the package naming from com.opensymphony to
>> > org.apache.struts If yes, I agree.
>>
>> Yes, although I really want to keep the command pattern bit isolated
>> from the web bits still. That's as simple as correct packaging,
>> though.
>>
>> Along with that comes finding the code that XWork dupes, like some
>> commons stuff, and replacing it. Some of that has already been done.
>>
>> > > S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the
>> list,
>> > > on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
>> > Have you got some links handy? just some example to better understand
>> what you mean.
>>
>> I don't, actually, but off the top of my head, things like the JR
>> plugin make it difficult to make report files come from anywhere but
>> the file system, because the compiled report lookup happens
>> (relatively) deep within the result processing.
>>
>> Most problems like that are solvable with fairly trivial refactoring.
>> This extends to some of the XWork stuff (I've brought up the type
>> conversions before, as have others) and potentially a bit in
>> S2-non-plugin code--still poking around.
>>
>> d.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
I'd also prearrange the update of OGNL to commons version (
http://commons.apache.org/ognl/)
So, what about if we add a new 3.x branch and start to put our effort in
this new one?
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
On 29 November 2011 18:03, Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
> > with current Guice. Do I understand correctly?
>
> Yep. I'm also unsure of the amount of work required--I'm trying to dig
> in to it along with a related side project and just don't know yet.
>
> > Do you mean change the package naming from com.opensymphony to
> > org.apache.struts If yes, I agree.
>
> Yes, although I really want to keep the command pattern bit isolated
> from the web bits still. That's as simple as correct packaging,
> though.
>
> Along with that comes finding the code that XWork dupes, like some
> commons stuff, and replacing it. Some of that has already been done.
>
> > > S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the
> list,
> > > on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
> > Have you got some links handy? just some example to better understand
> what you mean.
>
> I don't, actually, but off the top of my head, things like the JR
> plugin make it difficult to make report files come from anywhere but
> the file system, because the compiled report lookup happens
> (relatively) deep within the result processing.
>
> Most problems like that are solvable with fairly trivial refactoring.
> This extends to some of the XWork stuff (I've brought up the type
> conversions before, as have others) and potentially a bit in
> S2-non-plugin code--still poking around.
>
> d.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
> You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
> with current Guice. Do I understand correctly?
Yep. I'm also unsure of the amount of work required--I'm trying to dig
in to it along with a related side project and just don't know yet.
> Do you mean change the package naming from com.opensymphony to
> org.apache.struts If yes, I agree.
Yes, although I really want to keep the command pattern bit isolated
from the web bits still. That's as simple as correct packaging,
though.
Along with that comes finding the code that XWork dupes, like some
commons stuff, and replacing it. Some of that has already been done.
> > S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the list,
> > on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
> Have you got some links handy? just some example to better understand what you mean.
I don't, actually, but off the top of my head, things like the JR
plugin make it difficult to make report files come from anywhere but
the file system, because the compiled report lookup happens
(relatively) deep within the result processing.
Most problems like that are solvable with fairly trivial refactoring.
This extends to some of the XWork stuff (I've brought up the type
conversions before, as have others) and potentially a bit in
S2-non-plugin code--still poking around.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
Hi Dave,
could we go into more depth?
>
> P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
>
You mean: replace the old DI engine (which is the predecessor of Guice)
with current Guice.
Do I understand correctly?
If yes, I'd vote for it, though at the moment I have no idea how much hard
could be that task :)
> P2. Complete XWork subsumption.
>
Do you mean change the package naming from com.opensymphony to
org.apache.struts
If yes, I agree.
In the past, someone talked about the possibility to merge the S2 core with
XWork.
In this case, I think that is good to have a separation of concerns.
> S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the list,
> on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
>
>
Have you got some links handy? just some example to better understand what
you mean.
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Dave Newton <da...@gmail.com>.
I was thinking about S3 over the weekend. (Hmm, my habit of abbreviating S2
hits a snag with S3) and had a few thoughts.
Two main things for me, and one secondary.
P1. Update "internal" injection to use current Guice.
P2. Complete XWork subsumption.
S1. Refactorings for further extensibility based on questions on the list,
on CodeRanch, and Stack Overflow.
The Ps are fairly big undertakings; I've started to analyze some of them.
The refactorings are because some of the codebase is still fairly
monolithic and doesn't allow some fairly obvious things. The plugins in
particular come up fairly often (well, some of them).
d.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
<mc...@apache.org>wrote:
> I think that Struts 3 deserves a deep analysis, we should enforce the
> concept that S3 is a new version based on S2, otherwise we will run the
> risk of mislead the struts users.
> Considering we are going to give a new style to the website, I think this
> is a good chance to take this aspect into consideration.
>
> Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
> G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
> Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
>
> Maurizio Cucchiara
>
>
> 2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>
>
> > 2011/11/29 Rene Gielen <re...@googlemail.com>:
> > > While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> > > hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the
> proposed
> > > versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd
> > rather
> > > see it as
> > >
> > > 3.0.0
> > > 3.0.1
> > > 3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
> > > 3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack release)
> > > 3.0.3
> > > ...
> > > 3.1.0 (Fabulous new features and all exciting stuff, but API stability)
> > > 3.1.1
> > > ...
> > >
> > > The forth number is only for rare cases, usually each released version
> > > consists of three numbers.
> >
> > I'm also happy with that :-)
> >
> > What about brand naming ? Can we do it like this, we have project
> > version Struts 3.0.1 aka Struts 3 ? The name of packages is also
> > org.apache.struts3.*
> >
> > So mainly Struts 3 is a different beast than Struts 2 but base on the
> > same key concept.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > --
> > Łukasz
> > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> > Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
I think that Struts 3 deserves a deep analysis, we should enforce the
concept that S3 is a new version based on S2, otherwise we will run the
risk of mislead the struts users.
Considering we are going to give a new style to the website, I think this
is a good chance to take this aspect into consideration.
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>
> 2011/11/29 Rene Gielen <re...@googlemail.com>:
> > While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> > hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the proposed
> > versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd
> rather
> > see it as
> >
> > 3.0.0
> > 3.0.1
> > 3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
> > 3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack release)
> > 3.0.3
> > ...
> > 3.1.0 (Fabulous new features and all exciting stuff, but API stability)
> > 3.1.1
> > ...
> >
> > The forth number is only for rare cases, usually each released version
> > consists of three numbers.
>
> I'm also happy with that :-)
>
> What about brand naming ? Can we do it like this, we have project
> version Struts 3.0.1 aka Struts 3 ? The name of packages is also
> org.apache.struts3.*
>
> So mainly Struts 3 is a different beast than Struts 2 but base on the
> same key concept.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Rene Gielen <re...@googlemail.com>:
> While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
> hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the proposed
> versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
> see it as
>
> 3.0.0
> 3.0.1
> 3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
> 3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack release)
> 3.0.3
> ...
> 3.1.0 (Fabulous new features and all exciting stuff, but API stability)
> 3.1.1
> ...
>
> The forth number is only for rare cases, usually each released version
> consists of three numbers.
I'm also happy with that :-)
What about brand naming ? Can we do it like this, we have project
version Struts 3.0.1 aka Struts 3 ? The name of packages is also
org.apache.struts3.*
So mainly Struts 3 is a different beast than Struts 2 but base on the
same key concept.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Rene Gielen <re...@googlemail.com>.
While I'm pretty sure that the discussion about branding vs. versioning
hasn't come to any conclusion yet, I strongly disagree with the proposed
versioning of at least four numbers, as I understand this here. I'd rather
see it as
3.0.0
3.0.1
3.0.2 (Security problem detected)
3.0.2.1 (Fasttrack release)
3.0.3
...
3.1.0 (Fabulous new features and all exciting stuff, but API stability)
3.1.1
...
The forth number is only for rare cases, usually each released version
consists of three numbers.
- René
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>
> Struts 3 should be version as follow:
> - 3.0.0.1
> - 3.0.1.1
> - 3.1.0.1
> - ....
>
> ?
>
>
> Kind regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>:
> Just for curiosity why do we need 4 numbers and not just 3?
To follow MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE.PATCH scheme, but we can stick with
3 numbers and the fourth (the first one) will always be equal to 3.
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Maurizio Cucchiara <mc...@apache.org>.
Just for curiosity why do we need 4 numbers and not just 3?
Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara
G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921
Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara
Maurizio Cucchiara
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>:
> 2011/11/29 Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>:
>> Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
>> talking about a Struts 3?
>
> Why not ? Preparing a plan is always good (we don't have to follow it ;-) )
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.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
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>:
> Ack, my apologies. I thought we were talking about Struts 3, whereas it
> really would have been Struts 2 v 3.0. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeah, that's confuse me as well - Struts 2 ver. 3.0.0.1 :/
Kind regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>.
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>
> 2011/11/29 Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>:
> > Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
> > talking about a Struts 3?
>
> Why not ? Preparing a plan is always good (we don't have to follow it ;-) )
>
>
Ack, my apologies. I thought we were talking about Struts 3, whereas it
really would have been Struts 2 v 3.0. Sorry for the confusion.
--
"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand." -
Randy Pausch
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>.
2011/11/29 Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>:
> Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
> talking about a Struts 3?
Why not ? Preparing a plan is always good (we don't have to follow it ;-) )
Regards
--
Łukasz
+ 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Deprecate 2.1 version
Posted by Philip Luppens <ph...@gmail.com>.
2011/11/29 Łukasz Lenart <lu...@googlemail.com>
> Struts 3 should be version as follow:
> - 3.0.0.1
> - 3.0.1.1
> - 3.1.0.1
> - ....
>
> ?
>
>
> Kind regards
> --
> Łukasz
> + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/
> Warszawa JUG conference - Confitura http://confitura.pl/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Woah - hold your horses, matey ! Did I miss something? Are we seriously
talking about a Struts 3?
- Phil
--
"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand." -
Randy Pausch