You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> on 2006/06/18 01:14:50 UTC
[tiles] Version 2.0?
In another thread,
On 6/14/06, Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Joe Germuska wrote:
>
> > However, I realize as I write this that saddling Standalone Tiles
> > with that kind of weight is wrong. SAT is essentially a 2.0
> > release, and should clean up all these kinds of things (and I too
> > find the Tiles API overly cluttered, so i'm totally in favor of
> > these kinds of changes...)
>
> I agree that ST is basically a 2.0 version.
> I aim to clean it up as much as possible. I just hope we
> don't lose the user base in the process.
Hmmm... "Tiles 2.0" ? I like it. :)
No need to state the obvious -- it's clearly standing alone, since it
isn't packaged with Struts Action and has no dependencies on it.
"Tiles" vs. "Struts Tiles" should be enough to differentiate them, if
we're consistent.
Thoughts?
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [tiles] Version 2.0?
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org>.
+1. I think that solves a lot of things.
Greg
On Jun 17, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> In another thread,
> On 6/14/06, Greg Reddin <gr...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Joe Germuska wrote:
>>
>> > However, I realize as I write this that saddling Standalone Tiles
>> > with that kind of weight is wrong. SAT is essentially a 2.0
>> > release, and should clean up all these kinds of things (and I too
>> > find the Tiles API overly cluttered, so i'm totally in favor of
>> > these kinds of changes...)
>>
>> I agree that ST is basically a 2.0 version.
>> I aim to clean it up as much as possible. I just hope we
>> don't lose the user base in the process.
>
> Hmmm... "Tiles 2.0" ? I like it. :)
>
> No need to state the obvious -- it's clearly standing alone, since it
> isn't packaged with Struts Action and has no dependencies on it.
> "Tiles" vs. "Struts Tiles" should be enough to differentiate them, if
> we're consistent.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> 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: [tiles] Version 2.0?
Posted by Paul Benedict <pa...@yahoo.com>.
Tiles 2.0 is fine. I like it alot. +2 :-)
Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote: In another thread,
On 6/14/06, Greg Reddin wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Joe Germuska wrote:
>
> > However, I realize as I write this that saddling Standalone Tiles
> > with that kind of weight is wrong. SAT is essentially a 2.0
> > release, and should clean up all these kinds of things (and I too
> > find the Tiles API overly cluttered, so i'm totally in favor of
> > these kinds of changes...)
>
> I agree that ST is basically a 2.0 version.
> I aim to clean it up as much as possible. I just hope we
> don't lose the user base in the process.
Hmmm... "Tiles 2.0" ? I like it. :)
No need to state the obvious -- it's clearly standing alone, since it
isn't packaged with Struts Action and has no dependencies on it.
"Tiles" vs. "Struts Tiles" should be enough to differentiate them, if
we're consistent.
Thoughts?
--
Wendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.