You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Peri Srinivas <ps...@arzoo.com> on 2001/02/20 19:41:01 UTC
struts portability.
Hi ,
I just bumped on to project where I had a code base working with 0.5 version of Struts.
After replacing with 1.0 i discovered there were quite a bunch of chages like.
1)ValidatingActionForm --changed from Interface to class.
2)Methods of ActionBase changed thier signatures.
eg: 1)getResources
2)saveErrors.
Can we assume the backWord compatiblity of 1.0 when we have future versions.
T,
Peri
Re: struts portability.
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <Cr...@eng.sun.com>.
Peri Srinivas wrote:
> Hi , I just bumped on to project where I had a code base
> working with 0.5 version of Struts. After replacing with 1.0 i
> discovered there were quite a bunch of chages like.
> 1)ValidatingActionForm --changed from Interface to class.
> 2)Methods of ActionBase changed thier signatures. eg:
> 1)getResources 2)saveErrors. Can we assume
> the backWord compatiblity of 1.0 when we have future
> versions. T,Peri
To the maximum degree possible, you should be able to count on backwards
compatibility within the 1.x family. That is why the extensive changes
between 0.5 and 1.0 were made now, *before* the 1.0 final release.
Craig McClanahan
Re: struts portability.
Posted by Maya Muchnik <mm...@pumatech.com>.
Or at least a list what we need to do to make the appropriate
conversions (from 1.0 and forward).
Peri Srinivas wrote:
> Hi , I just bumped on to project where I had a code base
> working with 0.5 version of Struts. After replacing with 1.0 i
> discovered there were quite a bunch of chages like.
> 1)ValidatingActionForm --changed from Interface to class.
> 2)Methods of ActionBase changed thier signatures. eg:
> 1)getResources 2)saveErrors. Can we assume
> the backWord compatiblity of 1.0 when we have future
> versions. T,Peri