Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

["Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>]

I certainly won't quibble over the name... I can't believe I'm saying it
now, but I'd prefer Struts Classic :)  Not a big deal though, I can
certainly live with Action1, your justifications do make sense.

So, I guess the question is, does anyone else think this is a good idea? 
Can we get enough buy-in from people to make it happen?  I'm not really
sure what I could do to help make it happen, but since I brought it up,
I'll do whatever I can.

Frank

-- 
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: fzammetti@hotmail.com
Java Web Parts -
http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!

On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:44 am, Don Brown said:
> A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
> Action is the project and there are two versions.  However, as Action 2
> has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the wiki, jira, and
> Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not be on to something.
> Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to treat
> them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and website
> perspective as well.
>
> I think the project names should remain the same, but from a project
> management perspective, I'm starting to agree with you they should be
> clearly separate.  Keeping Action 1 and Action 2 as the names is
> important as it conveys progress, migration, and similar goals, however,
> I think we would be better off to treat them as to separate projects.
>
> Don
>
> Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
>> On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:20 am, Don Brown said:
>>
>>> So again, there is much to do and please do join the efforts.  If there
>>> is something we can do to help make the project direction clearer, or
>>> highlight areas that need work, please let us know.  These are the
>>> types
>>> of non-code discussions I feel are appropriate for this list as their
>>> end result is more commits and technical involvement.
>>>
>>
>> Don, can I make one suggestion here, or actually, ask a question first?
>> And if by chance it is already the case, I'd like to see it communicated
>> much clearer.
>>
>> What is the status of Action1?  What I mean is, what is its standing
>> with
>> relation to SAF2 and Shale?  At this point in time, under the Struts
>> umbrella, do we have three projects (Action1, SAF2 and Shale) or two
>> (Action and Shale)?
>>
>> Looking at the web site, the later appears to be the case.  If that is
>> NOT
>> currently the case, I believe it should be communicated much clearer,
>> beginning with how it is shown on the Struts site.
>>
>> If that IS the case, I'd like to suggest that there be three separate
>> projects under Struts.  If Action1 were allowed to be a separate project
>> under Struts, and maybe we call it Struts Classic (I was against this
>> name
>> some time ago, but I think it makes sense now), I think there would be a
>> lot less anxiety out there about its fate.  It could continue to evolve
>> on
>> its own, and people could target their contributions to one or the
>> other.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

[Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>]

Whether or not Action 1 and 2 get their own link under frameworks, the Action 1 site needs work.  Let's get things done 
rather than just talk about them :)

Don

Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:59 am, Don Brown said:
>> This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move
>> forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to
>> navigate and missing content.  If you are volunteering ;), you could
>> browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be
>> improved from a user perspective.  If you are really ambitious, you can
>> checkout the action project and create patches for the docs
>> (subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs.  I think
>> your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find
>> information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to
>> resolving this important observation.
> 
> I'm on a very tight schedule with my book work at the moment, but I should
> be able to find at least some time this weekend, probably not before then
> though.  However, before I do that...
> 
> Are you saying that it would be OK, at least from your perspective, to
> break out Action1 as far as the site organization goes, even if it isn't
> an officially recognized sub-project from a management prespective?  I
> almost wonder if that might be worse...
> 
> To clarify my concern... your right, part of it is simply finding
> information, and that's really pretty easy to solve, as you say, just some
> web site mods should do it for the most part.  My larger concern though,
> and why I was suggesting Action1 be officially a sub-project separate from
> Action2 and Shale, is so that it can take on a life of its own and
> continue to evolve separate from everything else (of course always sharing
> where possible!), and that it is clear to everyone that that is the
> plan... My understanding is that is already the intention and always has
> been, but making it its own project makes it, I think, much clearer.  It
> also perhaps allows people to focus more in contributing.
> 
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework.  What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale.  And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?
> 
>> Don
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

[Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>]

Ted Husted wrote:
> On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
>> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
>> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework.  What I would like
>> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale.  And
>> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
>> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
>> might it be mixed signals before that time?
> 
> The term "subproject" doesn't mean a lot. There is only one PMC and
> one set of committers and one dev list. It's not unusual for there to
> be multiple lines of development for a product. We are doing that
> right now with Action 1.2 and 1.3.x
> 
> When Action2 comes down from the incubator, it would make sense to me
> to list it under frameworks, so the list would be Action1, Action2,
> and Shale. I hadn't thought about it, but I expect that's what we
> would have done anyway..

+1  This is what I meant when I said we should make them more distinct:
  - Give each their own link under frameworks
  - Each have their own JIRA project
  - And I'd argue, give action2 it's own root directory in SVN, although that isn't as big of deal

Don

> 
> We did much the same during the 1.1 death march. There was a branch of
> the site for 1.0 and another for 1.1. Later, we reverted to the usual
> practice where the website reflects the head of the nightly build.
> Likewise, we have full copies of the 1.2 websites posted too.
> 
> If Action1 continues to move forward, then, sure, people could
> continue to update its area of the website. But, I think the best way
> to think of Action1 and Action2 is just that: version 1.x and version
> 2.x. Action2 is the new and improved Action1. It's similar in a lot of
> ways, and different in others ways, but 2.0 versions are often like
> that. We *always* said that 2.x would be a revolution, and that's what
> we got.
> 
> -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

Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

[Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>]

On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework.  What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale.  And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?

The term "subproject" doesn't mean a lot. There is only one PMC and
one set of committers and one dev list. It's not unusual for there to
be multiple lines of development for a product. We are doing that
right now with Action 1.2 and 1.3.x

When Action2 comes down from the incubator, it would make sense to me
to list it under frameworks, so the list would be Action1, Action2,
and Shale. I hadn't thought about it, but I expect that's what we
would have done anyway..

We did much the same during the 1.1 death march. There was a branch of
the site for 1.0 and another for 1.1. Later, we reverted to the usual
practice where the website reflects the head of the nightly build.
Likewise, we have full copies of the 1.2 websites posted too.

If Action1 continues to move forward, then, sure, people could
continue to update its area of the website. But, I think the best way
to think of Action1 and Action2 is just that: version 1.x and version
2.x. Action2 is the new and improved Action1. It's similar in a lot of
ways, and different in others ways, but 2.0 versions are often like
that. We *always* said that 2.x would be a revolution, and that's what
we got.

-Ted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

[Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>]

On 4/26/06, Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org> wrote:
> A few weeks ago, my reaction would have definitely been no, Struts
> Action is the project and there are two versions.  However, as Action 2
> has moved along, and we've migrated resources like the wiki, jira, and
> Action 1 to Maven 2, I'm starting if you might not be on to something.
> Just from an SVN and JIRA perspective, it is much more natural to treat
> them as two different projects, and I'd argue from a user and website
> perspective as well.

Duh!

On 4/26/06, Frank W. Zammetti <fz...@omnytex.com> wrote:
> To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
> currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework.  What I would like
> to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale.  And
> sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
> should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
> might it be mixed signals before that time?

I guess no one cares about the simplicity of, say, job search and
validity of results. It would be much simpler for everyone if they
were simply Struts, Webwork and Shale. Do you relly expect employers
to put "Struts Action Framework 2" in their job descriptions?

It would be much easier for Apache visitors to see one larger "Web
Frameworks" section that would cover not only for Struts, Webwork and
Shale, but for Tapestry, Cocoon and whatnot as well.

The above rant does not require a response.

Michael.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

["Frank W. Zammetti" <fz...@omnytex.com>]

On Wed, April 26, 2006 11:59 am, Don Brown said:
> This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move
> forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to
> navigate and missing content.  If you are volunteering ;), you could
> browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be
> improved from a user perspective.  If you are really ambitious, you can
> checkout the action project and create patches for the docs
> (subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs.  I think
> your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find
> information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to
> resolving this important observation.

I'm on a very tight schedule with my book work at the moment, but I should
be able to find at least some time this weekend, probably not before then
though.  However, before I do that...

Are you saying that it would be OK, at least from your perspective, to
break out Action1 as far as the site organization goes, even if it isn't
an officially recognized sub-project from a management prespective?  I
almost wonder if that might be worse...

To clarify my concern... your right, part of it is simply finding
information, and that's really pretty easy to solve, as you say, just some
web site mods should do it for the most part.  My larger concern though,
and why I was suggesting Action1 be officially a sub-project separate from
Action2 and Shale, is so that it can take on a life of its own and
continue to evolve separate from everything else (of course always sharing
where possible!), and that it is clear to everyone that that is the
plan... My understanding is that is already the intention and always has
been, but making it its own project makes it, I think, much clearer.  It
also perhaps allows people to focus more in contributing.

To be more concrete... on the web site, we have a Frameworks section,
currently listing Action Framework and Shale Framework.  What I would like
to see is three: Action1 Framework, Action2 Framework and Shale.  And
sure, I'll volunteer to do that work, but I would question whether that
should be done unless and until Action1 is its own official sub-project...
might it be mixed signals before that time?

> Don

Frank


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Action 1 and 2 as separate projects? (was This has gone too far.)

[Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>]

Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> So, I guess the question is, does anyone else think this is a good idea? 
> Can we get enough buy-in from people to make it happen?  I'm not really
> sure what I could do to help make it happen, but since I brought it up,
> I'll do whatever I can.
>   
That's the spirit! :) 

This particular decision needs more discussion before we can move 
forward on it, but in the meantime, our Action 1 website is hard to 
navigate and missing content.  If you are volunteering ;), you could 
browse through it and make a list of recommendations on how it could be 
improved from a user perspective.  If you are really ambitious, you can 
checkout the action project and create patches for the docs 
(subproject/src/site/xdocs), and even add entries to the FAQs.  I think 
your root concern is it is hard for users to follow Action 1 and find 
information, so I think improving the website would go a long way to 
resolving this important observation.

Don

> Frank
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org