Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Patrick Lightbody <plightbo <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Struts offers "Shale" for JSF
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.struts.devel
Date: Friday 16th December 2005 16:07:43 UTC (over 11 years ago)
I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. As an "outsider" to
Struts and someone who has spent 3 years living in the "WebWork
world", I only recently many of the Struts developers and community
this week at ApacheCon. Having been in a room talking about this very
issue with Ted, Don, Craig, Martin, Neil, Clinton, and others, I can
say without a doubt that everyone is on board with this vision of
Struts as a community and two parallel frameworks.

More so, we are all in agreement that we will collaborate wherever
possible, including:

 - common set of Java 5 annotations
  - similar style configuration tricks (auto-reloading, consistent use
of DTD or XML schema, etc)
 - validation engine
 - internationalization
 - possibly some tags even

I'd also like to add that whatever the history has been, today I see
Struts as a unique offering. In the web development space (regardless
of language), there are two schools of thoughts:

 - action frameworks: bind requests to methods in beans
 - event/component frameworks: don't worry about URLs as much and bind to
events

I think it is fair to say that marketplace of developers has not yet
decided that one of these is a clear "winner". Struts, as a community,
is uniquely positioned to offer both options and is best prepared for
the day when that winner is declared. We all agreed that when that day
comes, by working together in other areas (validation, i18n, config,
annotations, etc) not only will the code be easy to merge, but the
community will be too. No other web development community offers this.

As someone who has said some pretty disparaging remarks about Struts
technolog and community in the part (I'll do the google search for
you: http://blogs.opensymphony.com/plightbo/2003/10/webwork_docaday_struts_really.html),
I can comfortably say I made a big mistake in choosing to create a
divide but that I've learned from that mistake and that is why I am
here today.

And I believe that everyone in the Struts community is also on board
to continue the grow the spirit of cooperation, not only between
Struts Action and WebWork, but between Struts Action and Struts Shale.

Patrick

On 12/16/05, Frank W. Zammetti  wrote:
> I think it is fair to say that many of us have made similar comments over
> the past few months, and have every time been basically told that it is
> our problem we are not "getting it".  Usually we've been told nicely, but
> not always.  That isn't the point though,  The point is that this is not
a
> new complaint by any stretch, and it has previously been dismissed on
many
> occasions by more than one person.
>
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Founder and Chief Software Architect
> Omnytex Technologies
> http://www.omnytex.com
> AIM: fzammetti
> Yahoo: fzammetti
> MSN: fzammetti@hotmail.com
>
> On Fri, December 16, 2005 10:37 am, Patrick Lightbody said:
> > This sounds familiar :)
> >
> > I definitely would recommend changing the slides and title of the
> > presentation. Just yesterday I ran in to this:
> >
> > http://javasymposium.techtarget.com/html/det_descriptions.htm#McClanahanShale
> >
> > Changing the title to something like "Shale: the Struts Component
> > Framework" would certainly clear this up. We need to be firm and clear
> > on the idea that Struts has many sub-projects, and two major
> > frameworks: an Action framework and a Component framework.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Dakota Jack  wrote:
> >> With some people like Craig McClanahan delivering talks at significant
> >> conferences entitled with contrary ideas like "Is Shale the next
> >> Struts",
> >> you might excuse people for thinking that this "subproject" ruse is
> >> baloney.  I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday and I have read
> >> all
> >> about the Trojan Horse.
> >>
> >> On 12/15/05, Craig McClanahan  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > By the way, the original decision to incorporate Shale as a
subproject
> >> > occurred nearly 11 months ago:
> >> >
> >> >   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=110651419515521&w=2
> >> >
> >> > -- Paul
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Craig
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its
> >> back."
> >> ~Dakota Jack~
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
 
CD: 4ms