You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> on 2006/01/10 12:30:51 UTC
[POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
<Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
> > Struts Action Framework.
>
> I figured that out.
>
> > Is that what Struts is now being called?
> >
> >
> > That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
> > code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
> > for more info.
>
> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly known as
> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was just
> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I think
> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any mindshare in
> the developer community.
In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
* [SAF 2.x]
or
* [Action 2.x]
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Riyaz Mansoor <ri...@gmail.com>.
hi guys. back! :)
just [Action] ?
riyaz
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action 2.x]
>
> -Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> > subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> > framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
> >
> > * [SAF 2.x]
> > or
> > * [Action 2.x]
>
> or
> [Action2] for now, and see what happens later with dot releases.
+1
--
Martin Cooper
--
> Wendy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 1/11/06, Patrick Lightbody <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just from my experience, I'd prefer if we didn't use the "2"
> anywhere. We used "WebWork2" for a while and it really confused
> things and broke up the brand. We've had much better success ever
> since we actively eliminated "WebWork2" in favor of just "WebWork".
>
> Some day there may be a 2.1 and a 2.2 which will be significantly
> different from a 2.0.
What would probably happen is that the 'default' for questions would
shift over time, and the [action2] (or whatever) email subject tag
would naturally phase out. This isn't about branding the framework,
but just trying to sort out the questions on the mailing list.
It may be that all we need to to is politely, repeatedly, insist that
people follow the guidelines that Michael mentioned, and state up
front what version they're using. Whether it's in the subject line or
in the text of the message doesn't matter to me, but this is something
that's not happening now.
The maven users list had good luck with [m1] and [m2] prefixes. The
Tomcat users list supports 4.1, 5.0 and 5.5 without using subject line
tags. So it can work either way. :)
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Patrick Lightbody <pl...@gmail.com>.
Just from my experience, I'd prefer if we didn't use the "2"
anywhere. We used "WebWork2" for a while and it really confused
things and broke up the brand. We've had much better success ever
since we actively eliminated "WebWork2" in favor of just "WebWork".
Some day there may be a 2.1 and a 2.2 which will be significantly
different from a 2.0.
On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Rich Feit wrote:
> Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a
>>> standard
>>> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
>>> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we
>>> use
>>>
>>> * [SAF 2.x]
>>> or
>>> * [Action 2.x]
>>>
>>
>> or
>> [Action2] for now, and see what happens later with dot releases.
>>
>> --
>> Wendy
>>
>>
> +1 to that (to both "Action" instead of "SAF", and to "2" instead
> of "2.x").
>
> Happy New Year, all. :)
>
> Rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Rich Feit <ri...@apache.org>.
Wendy Smoak wrote:
>On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
>>subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
>>framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>>
>>* [SAF 2.x]
>>or
>>* [Action 2.x]
>>
>>
>
>or
>[Action2] for now, and see what happens later with dot releases.
>
>--
>Wendy
>
>
>
+1 to that (to both "Action" instead of "SAF", and to "2" instead of "2.x").
Happy New Year, all. :)
Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
> or
> * [Action 2.x]
or
[Action2] for now, and see what happens later with dot releases.
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 1/10/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with
> Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
> see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case
> [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
> really matters.
[action] (without a version identifier) makes the most sense to me too.
Don
Craig
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>.
Yeah, but that happens anyways, even between 1.2 and 1.3. I agree with Michael it is unnecessary. The only argument I
see could be to distinguish between action and shale in which case [action] is fine. But really, I don't think it
really matters.
Don
Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
>>(presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
>>2.0/WW/Ti .
>
>
> There has to be _some_ way to separate the questions, otherwise every
> answer is going to start with, "What version of which framework are
> you using?" (Or just be entirely wrong...)
>
> --
> Wendy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> > (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> > 2.0/WW/Ti .
>
> There has to be _some_ way to separate the questions, otherwise every
> answer is going to start with, "What version of which framework are
> you using?" (Or just be entirely wrong...)
Before posting questions every mailing list subscriber is supposed to
read the http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
recommendations. In particular, it reads: "Describe the environment in
which it occurs (machine, OS, application, whatever). Provide your
vendor's distribution and release level (e.g.: "Fedora Core 4",
"Slackware 9.1", etc.)."
So this kind of sorting out the questions will happen automatically.
The questions formed impoperly will likely remain unanswered. I don't
see how this can be harmful ;-) It will encourage people to look in
wiki/archives first or to rephrase the question better.
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
> (presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
> 2.0/WW/Ti .
There has to be _some_ way to separate the questions, otherwise every
answer is going to start with, "What version of which framework are
you using?" (Or just be entirely wrong...)
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action 2.x]
I don't see a point to build fences between two versions of
(presumably) the same framework. This will slow down the adoption of
2.0/WW/Ti .
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 1/10/06, Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> > Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
> >
> > (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums
> in
> > CNet over a 300 baud moden via CGTerm, and I was happy to have it!)
>
> Though, I wasn't glad for the phone bills that went with it :)
>
> I do remember when Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW. Back around
> 1989/1990, there was an article circulating the BBS networks about
> "hooking all the world's computers together into a world wide web". At
> the time, I thought it was lunatic fringe, but I dutifully forwarded
> the message along to a hypertext forum I managed, and then along to
> the rest of the Fidonet background. At first, the SGML mavens in our
> group dissed HTML as amateurish. A year later, they were giving lofty
> advice :)
Pah. This new-fangled www stuff. Anyone remember Project Xanadu?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu
--
Martin Cooper
-Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
>
> (You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
> CNet over a 300 baud moden via CGTerm, and I was happy to have it!)
Though, I wasn't glad for the phone bills that went with it :)
I do remember when Tim Berners-Lee invented the WWW. Back around
1989/1990, there was an article circulating the BBS networks about
"hooking all the world's computers together into a world wide web". At
the time, I thought it was lunatic fringe, but I dutifully forwarded
the message along to a hypertext forum I managed, and then along to
the rest of the Fidonet background. At first, the SGML mavens in our
group dissed HTML as amateurish. A year later, they were giving lofty
advice :)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by "Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>.
On Tue, January 10, 2006 9:18 am, Ted Husted said:
> Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
Hey, credit where credit's due... Al *INVENTED* the Internet! ;) LOL
(You had a mailreader in the BBS days?!? I remember lame little forums in
CNet over a 300 baud moden via CGTerm, and I was happy to have it!)
P.S., I'd go with [SAF 2.x] myself, if fo no other reason than its shorter
and you'll be able to see more of the real subject. Then again, I suppose
[Action] is shorter still.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
> name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
> parts. Too little too late...
I would have to agree that, much like Democracy, "Action is the worst
choice of a name -- except for all those others that have been tried."
:)
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 1/11/06, netsql <ne...@pointcast.com> wrote:
> And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
> correcting them.
Because, very shortly, we will be adopting the WebWork code base as
Struts Action 2.x, and, at the same time marching toward a stable
release of Struts Action 1.3.x.
We know that people are going to want to thread conversations by
Action 1.x or Action 2.x. Better to standardize now and get it over
with.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
On 1/11/06, netsql <ne...@pointcast.com> wrote:
>
> And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
> correcting them.
Right. Ford Motor Co. has the following brands: Mercury, Lincoln
and... Ford (don't get started with Jaguar, Volvo or Mazda).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by netsql <ne...@pointcast.com>.
And... why not Struts, which is what user list calls it, instead of
correcting them.
.V
James Mitchell wrote:
> Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
>
> Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
>
> Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 1/11/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Using "CoR", or some variant of it, in the name is a very bad idea, IMHO,
> because that is a reflection of the *implementation* of the framework, not
> the style of it.
+1.
We talked about "Core" for a while, but that was Core as in "kernal"
not Core as in an acronym.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 1/10/06, Wolfgang Gehner <ne...@infonoia.com> wrote:
>
> James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
> "Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
> Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
> wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts
> CORe a while ago, and Ted held it up for a while. I didn't see many
> objections to it on the dev list at the time.
Here's one. (An objection, that is.)
The point of the "Action" in Struts Action Framework is to make clear that
it is an action-oriented framework, as opposed to, for example, a
component-oriented framework (for which we offer Shale). That is, it defines
the "style" of the framework.
Using "CoR", or some variant of it, in the name is a very bad idea, IMHO,
because that is a reflection of the *implementation* of the framework, not
the style of it. People don't (or shouldn't) care how the framework is
implemented, so much as they care about what it does for them. If we changed
the implementation to something other than CoR, but kept the public API the
same, we'd have to rename the framework just to get CoR out of the name,
which makes no sense at all.
Use of COR since Struts 1.3 really opened it up for the future and
> flexible uses. To me, Struts since 1.3 is a "Struts Command Framework"
> (SCF) rather than SAF. I see a "Command 2.0" or "COR 2.0" but not
> "Action 2.0"or "SAF 2.0"
Again, you're looking at the implementation of the framework as opposed to
its architectural style. That's not a good basis on which to name a
framework.
--
Martin Cooper
Disclosure: I'd have an easier job marketing Struts book I coauthored
> with Vic (published in German and French) with Struts COR (or Command)
> than with Struts Action. We'd advocated a kind of ActionContext with
> .execute(context) on top of Struts 1.1 early on.
>
> PS for Ted: please forgive me bringing it up again. James just struck a
> chord.
>
> Wolfgang Gehner
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
> > I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
> > [Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
> >
> > I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
> > "Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
> > then cancelled before sending......"Action" bothers me, but it's hard
> > to articulate why. It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
> > name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
> > parts. Too little too late...
> >
> > That reminds me of a recent conversation...
> >
> > Developer #1 - "Hey, did you hear about the recent changes in Struts?"
> > Developer #2 - "No man, when did that happen?"
> >
> > Developer #1 - "Last week, it's called Action now"
> > Developer #2 - "But, you've always had to extend Action."
> >
> > Developer #1 - "No, I mean it is called Struts Action"
> > Developer #2 - "Um, dude, it's been called 'Action' since the beginning"
> >
> > Developer #1 - "No! Struts 'Action' Framework" (with air quotes)
> > Developer #2 - "So that's the new Chain thing?"
> >
> > Developer #1 - "It's the same framework, different name"
> > Developer #2 - "You mean the new 'Ti' thing?"
> >
> > Developer #1 - "No! Here, go to their web site" (opens Firefox)
> >
> > (Developer #3 walks up)
> >
> > Developer #1 - "See, it's called 'Struts Action Framework'"
> > Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
> >
> > Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
> >
> > Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Mitchell
> > EdgeTech, Inc.
> > http://edgetechservices.net/
> > 678.910.8017
> > Skype: jmitchtx
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> >
> >> Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
> >> that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
> >> good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
> >> the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
> >>
> >> We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put
> >> things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to
> >> mention [BEER]!) This is no different.
> >>
> >> We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on
> >> people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts
> >> that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the
> >> rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
> >> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
> >> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
> >>
> >> -Ted.
> >>
> >> On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm not sure this is a good idea.
> >>>
> >>> By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
> >>> mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
> >>> attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
> >>> trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
> >>> "you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
> >>> you can ask Ted!!"
> >>>
> >>> Your thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> James Mitchell
> >>> EdgeTech, Inc.
> >>> http://edgetechservices.net/
> >>> 678.910.8017
> >>> Skype: jmitchtx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
> >>>> <Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Struts Action Framework.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I figured that out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Is that what Struts is now being called?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
> >>>>>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
> >>>>>> for more info.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
> >>>>> known as
> >>>>> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I
> was just
> >>>>> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
> >>>>> think
> >>>>> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
> >>>>> mindshare in
> >>>>> the developer community.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on
> a standard
> >>>> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> >>>> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should
> we use
> >>>>
> >>>> * [SAF 2.x]
> >>>>
> >>>> or
> >>>>
> >>>> * [Action 2.x]
> >>>>
> >>>> -Ted.
> >>>>
> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> HTH, Ted.
> >> http://www.husted.com/poe/
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Wolfgang Gehner <ne...@infonoia.com>.
James, could you warm up to "Struts COR" or CORe? Like you, I feel that
"Action" focuses on some "old" mechanics part of Struts. COR as in
Chain-Of-Command, which IMHO brought Struts forward a lot (I already
wrote an article about it last Feb). I had brought up the name Struts
CORe a while ago, and Ted held it up for a while. I didn't see many
objections to it on the dev list at the time.
Use of COR since Struts 1.3 really opened it up for the future and
flexible uses. To me, Struts since 1.3 is a "Struts Command Framework"
(SCF) rather than SAF. I see a "Command 2.0" or "COR 2.0" but not
"Action 2.0"or "SAF 2.0"
Disclosure: I'd have an easier job marketing Struts book I coauthored
with Vic (published in German and French) with Struts COR (or Command)
than with Struts Action. We'd advocated a kind of ActionContext with
.execute(context) on top of Struts 1.1 early on.
PS for Ted: please forgive me bringing it up again. James just struck a
chord.
Wolfgang Gehner
James Mitchell wrote:
> I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
> [Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
>
> I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
> "Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
> then cancelled before sending......"Action" bothers me, but it's hard
> to articulate why. It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
> name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
> parts. Too little too late...
>
> That reminds me of a recent conversation...
>
> Developer #1 - "Hey, did you hear about the recent changes in Struts?"
> Developer #2 - "No man, when did that happen?"
>
> Developer #1 - "Last week, it's called Action now"
> Developer #2 - "But, you've always had to extend Action."
>
> Developer #1 - "No, I mean it is called Struts Action"
> Developer #2 - "Um, dude, it's been called 'Action' since the beginning"
>
> Developer #1 - "No! Struts 'Action' Framework" (with air quotes)
> Developer #2 - "So that's the new Chain thing?"
>
> Developer #1 - "It's the same framework, different name"
> Developer #2 - "You mean the new 'Ti' thing?"
>
> Developer #1 - "No! Here, go to their web site" (opens Firefox)
>
> (Developer #3 walks up)
>
> Developer #1 - "See, it's called 'Struts Action Framework'"
> Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
>
> Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
>
> Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> http://edgetechservices.net/
> 678.910.8017
> Skype: jmitchtx
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>
>> Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
>> that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
>> good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
>> the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
>>
>> We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put
>> things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to
>> mention [BEER]!) This is no different.
>>
>> We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on
>> people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts
>> that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the
>> rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
>> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
>> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
>>
>> -Ted.
>>
>> On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure this is a good idea.
>>>
>>> By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
>>> mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
>>> attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
>>> trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
>>> "you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
>>> you can ask Ted!!"
>>>
>>> Your thoughts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> James Mitchell
>>> EdgeTech, Inc.
>>> http://edgetechservices.net/
>>> 678.910.8017
>>> Skype: jmitchtx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
>>>> <Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Struts Action Framework.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured that out.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what Struts is now being called?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
>>>>>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
>>>>>> for more info.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
>>>>> known as
>>>>> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was just
>>>>> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
>>>>> think
>>>>> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
>>>>> mindshare in
>>>>> the developer community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
>>>> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
>>>> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>>>>
>>>> * [SAF 2.x]
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> * [Action 2.x]
>>>>
>>>> -Ted.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> HTH, Ted.
>> http://www.husted.com/poe/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
I didn't realize we had a default. If [Action] is the default, then
[Action 2.x] or [Action2] (thanks Wendy) makes perfect sense.
I never did pipe up during the "what do we call it" discussions for
"Ti", "Action", etc. I probably started a reply to 5 or 6 messages,
then cancelled before sending......"Action" bothers me, but it's hard
to articulate why. It just seems odd to me. I prefer using a new
name versus renaming something with the same name as one of it's
parts. Too little too late...
That reminds me of a recent conversation...
Developer #1 - "Hey, did you hear about the recent changes in Struts?"
Developer #2 - "No man, when did that happen?"
Developer #1 - "Last week, it's called Action now"
Developer #2 - "But, you've always had to extend Action."
Developer #1 - "No, I mean it is called Struts Action"
Developer #2 - "Um, dude, it's been called 'Action' since the beginning"
Developer #1 - "No! Struts 'Action' Framework" (with air quotes)
Developer #2 - "So that's the new Chain thing?"
Developer #1 - "It's the same framework, different name"
Developer #2 - "You mean the new 'Ti' thing?"
Developer #1 - "No! Here, go to their web site" (opens Firefox)
(Developer #3 walks up)
Developer #1 - "See, it's called 'Struts Action Framework'"
Developer #2 - "Oh, that's odd"
Developer #3 - "Hey guys, is that the new 'Ti' thing?"
Developer #1 and #2 (in unison) - "No!"
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Jan 10, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
> that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
> good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
> the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
>
> We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put
> things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to
> mention [BEER]!) This is no different.
>
> We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on
> people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts
> that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the
> rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
> the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
> mailreaders had twit lists. :)
>
> -Ted.
>
> On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is a good idea.
>>
>> By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
>> mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
>> attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
>> trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
>> "you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
>> you can ask Ted!!"
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> James Mitchell
>> EdgeTech, Inc.
>> http://edgetechservices.net/
>> 678.910.8017
>> Skype: jmitchtx
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
>>> <Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Struts Action Framework.
>>>>
>>>> I figured that out.
>>>>
>>>>> Is that what Struts is now being called?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
>>>>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
>>>>> for more info.
>>>>
>>>> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
>>>> known as
>>>> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was
>>>> just
>>>> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
>>>> think
>>>> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
>>>> mindshare in
>>>> the developer community.
>>>
>>> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a
>>> standard
>>> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
>>> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we
>>> use
>>>
>>> * [SAF 2.x]
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> * [Action 2.x]
>>>
>>> -Ted.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> HTH, Ted.
> http://www.husted.com/poe/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
Right now, [Action] is still the default, so we don't need a tag for
that. But we do need to look forward to [Action 2.x], and now is as
good a time as any. There are always people are are not interested in
the next major release of anything, at least until it stabalizes.
We're forever putting tags in subject lines. In the past, people put
things like [TILES] or [VALIDATOR] or [EL] in the taglines. (Not to
mention [BEER]!) This is no different.
We should be the change, but we shouldn't change our behavior based on
people who misbehave. If someone continues to make ridiculous posts
that waste my time, I just filter that address to the trash, with the
rest of the spam. And, again, this is nothing new or special. Back in
the BBS days, before Al Gore ever heard of the Internet, all the
mailreaders had twit lists. :)
-Ted.
On 1/10/06, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea.
>
> By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
> mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
> attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
> trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
> "you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
> you can ask Ted!!"
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> http://edgetechservices.net/
> 678.910.8017
> Skype: jmitchtx
>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
>
> > On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
> > <Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
> >>> Struts Action Framework.
> >>
> >> I figured that out.
> >>
> >>> Is that what Struts is now being called?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
> >>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
> >>> for more info.
> >>
> >> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
> >> known as
> >> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was just
> >> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
> >> think
> >> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
> >> mindshare in
> >> the developer community.
> >
> > In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> > subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> > framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
> >
> > * [SAF 2.x]
> >
> > or
> >
> > * [Action 2.x]
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
--
HTH, Ted.
http://www.husted.com/poe/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Struts Action Framework tagline
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
I'm not sure this is a good idea.
By agreeing on one or the other (or one that hasn't even been
mentioned yet), are we not setting ourselves up for future troll
attacks? Based on history, there is a high probability that dormant
trolls will come out of the woodwork with little more to say than
"you need to put [foo] in the subject line, if you don't believe me
you can ask Ted!!"
Your thoughts?
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Jan 10, 2006, at 6:30 AM, Ted Husted wrote:
> On 1/9/06, George.Dinwiddie@wellsfargo.com
> <Ge...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>>> Struts Action Framework.
>>
>> I figured that out.
>>
>>> Is that what Struts is now being called?
>>>
>>>
>>> That is what the original framework growing out of Struts 1.x
>>> code is now being called ... see the Struts website home page
>>> for more info.
>>
>> I read the discussions on what to call the framework formerly
>> known as
>> Struts. I understand what "Struts Action Framework" is. I was just
>> surprised to see it reduced to "SAF". I'm just a bystander, but I
>> think
>> that's a mistake, if you want Struts Action to retain any
>> mindshare in
>> the developer community.
>
> In the interest of effective filtering, we should agree on a standard
> subject tag for the Struts Action framework. For the Struts Shale
> framework, we've been using [Shale]. So, for the other, should we use
>
> * [SAF 2.x]
>
> or
>
> * [Action 2.x]
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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