craigmcc (AT) apache (DOT) org 12/1/2005 7:30:16 PM
My personal belief is that component oriented development is more
accessible
to a wider array of developers than action oriented frameworks.
Therefore,
I spend my time (disclaimer: I'm paid to do this too, but that
doesn't
cover much of my open source effort :-) working on technologies that
are
designed to increase the overall number of developers in the world that
are
using Java based technologies. Does that mean JSF is "better" than
action
I would agree sincerely with the above. And if that is the overall
intent of why Struts is moving in the direction it is then to some
extent I get it. I mean, on one level I don't get it. That being that if
JSF already exists, why not just improve JSF instead of creating JSF++?
I don't necessarily see the benefit in that sense. It might make more
sense to keep a good, action oriented framework, pushing it forward and
improving it, and let JSF take its course.
That is, unless you believe that action oriented frameworks are
inaccessible enough to newbies, that in terms of sheer productivity it
doesn't make sense to push that model forward. I can see that point of
view. I think what many of us are seeking either way, is a clarification
on where Struts is headed and why so we can make an informed decision.
Right now backwards compatibility is being stressed so much (and I
understand why, but bear with me) that it's possible that those making
decisions won't really know what Struts is about at a certain point and
will choose something more rigid like Tapestry or JSF. , like I said
in another email, start taking a look at something like Ruby on Rails. I
don't know. I just know that Struts has been a standard-bearer for some
time. And change isn't bad, as long as you know where that change is
headed. Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing
list.
Something more robust and visible might not be a bad idea. Because I
can speak from experience (having had to justify Struts 3 years ago when
I was working at a company choosing a framework, and again this year
when an organization I was with was testing out Tapestry) that Struts is
the standard, by and large. Confusing the powers that be, or making it
hard for people like myself to explain even what Struts is and why we
should choose it, is going to make life more difficult and perhaps have
people turning elsewhere.
Preston
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe (AT) struts (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help (AT) struts (DOT) apache.org

12/1/05, Preston CRAWFRD <Preston.Crawford (AT) state (DOT) or.uswrote:

craigmcc (AT) apache (DOT) org 12/1/2005 7:30:16 PM
My personal belief is that component oriented development is more
accessible
to a wider array of developers than action oriented frameworks.
Therefore,
I spend my time (disclaimer: I'm paid to do this too, but that
doesn't
cover much of my open source effort :-) working on technologies that
are
designed to increase the overall number of developers in the world that
are
using Java based technologies. Does that mean JSF is "better" than
action

I would agree sincerely with the above. And if that is the overall
intent of why Struts is moving in the direction it is then to some
extent I get it. I mean, on one level I don't get it. That being that if
JSF already exists, why not just improve JSF instead of creating JSF++?
I don't necessarily see the benefit in that sense. It might make more
sense to keep a good, action oriented framework, pushing it forward and
improving it, and let JSF take its course.

Is there some compelling reason you can think of why Struts, as an open
source project, cannot address *both* universes of users? After all (as Ted
says) we are not constrained by the typical economics of closed source
software development. WIthin the Struts community, there seem to be
developers willing to work on both kinds of frameworks -- and that's just as
legitimate (at the project level) as having Java and C and PERL and Python
projects at the Apache Software Foundation level.

There is more than one "right" answer.

That is, unless you believe that action oriented frameworks are
inaccessible enough to newbies, that in terms of sheer productivity it
doesn't make sense to push that model forward. I can see that point of
view. I think what many of us are seeking either way, is a clarification
on where Struts is headed and why so we can make an informed decision.
Right now backwards compatibility is being stressed so much (and I
understand why, but bear with me) that it's possible that those making
decisions won't really know what Struts is about at a certain point and
will choose something more rigid like Tapestry or JSF. , like I said
in another email, start taking a look at something like Ruby on Rails. I
don't know. I just know that Struts has been a standard-bearer for some
time. And change isn't bad, as long as you know where that change is
headed. Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing
list.

A *huge* number of newbies (to the Java platform) came in via Struts. A
significant percentage of them found it more difficult that they would have
liked, and more than I would like fell off the bandwagon and gave up.
There's plenty of room for making action frameworks more accessible -- but
the quality of "accessibility" can not be persisted in a boolean variable
:-).

Something more robust and visible might not be a bad idea. Because I
can speak from experience (having had to justify Struts 3 years ago when
I was working at a company choosing a framework, and again this year
when an organization I was with was testing out Tapestry) that Struts is
the standard, by and large. Confusing the powers that be, or making it
hard for people like myself to explain even what Struts is and why we
should choose it, is going to make life more difficult and perhaps have
people turning elsewhere.

<ducks>
Well, if you really want to live in a world where there is one and only one
choice, ASP.Net beckons :-)
</ducks>

Actually, that's not even true either if you peruse the Struts sandbox,
you'll find a couple of packages called Agility and Nexus which, together,
provide a C# based front controller framework that looks a *lot* like Struts
1.3 looks to Java developers.

Preston

Craig

12/1/05, Preston CRAWFRD <Preston.Crawford (AT) state (DOT) or.uswrote:

Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing
list.

Point well taken (although it still gets to ~3000 direct subscribers and
unknown numbers of people who look in the mail archives) seems like a
blogworthy subject as well. Will spend some time crafting some words to
post there too.

Craig

12/1/05, Preston CRAWFRD <Preston.Crawford (AT) state (DOT) or.uswrote:
Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing list.

Hey, you heard it here first :)

All of these explanations start on the user or dev list and work
their way into the website.

We don't have a marketing staff to run around and do such things for
us proactively. People ask questions, we answer them, and try to get
them into the website when we can.

We do need to announce more of the website updates somehow. Much of
this is already covered on the site, people just don't know that. The
problem is that we always need to decide between spending our time
doing the work or talking about the work. We're not a company, we're
just a gaggle of engineers, just like you. Some people have started to
help out with such things on the wiki, which is much appreciated.
-Ted.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe (AT) struts (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help (AT) struts (DOT) apache.org