You cannot *imagine* how many people have asked me to clarify this
relationship :-).
I hope this blog entry helps, but (as I noted) the future of Struts is
decided here, not by anything I, or anyone else, might opine
elsewhere.
Craig
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:15:57 -0400, Thomas L Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Roche Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:49:45 -0500
summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major
publication*
OK, mebbe it'll get cited in some major publication :-)
* that JSF does/will not replace Struts
* how JSF and Struts will likely tend to specialize, in future
* how probable specializations will complement (and compete) in
webapp development
Ted Husted Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:28:17 -0500
I think either of us would rather be developing Struts than
evangelizing Struts.
Tom Roche Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:00:00 -0500
This is not about evangelizing: it's about clarifying the
relationship between 2 large parts of J2EE's future, and correcting
some (apparently) false perceptions.
So I am pleased to note:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/craigmcc/20040927#struts_or_jsf_struts_and
It should be clear by now that there is overlap between Struts and
JSF, particularly in the view tier. Over time, JSF will continue to
evolve in the view tier area, and I'm going to be encouraging the
Struts community to focus on value adds in the controller and model
tiers.
Now I can whack the locals who say Struts? Isn't that what Faces
replaces? :-)
Thanks, Tom hoping to tool for Tiles this rev, at last Roche
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
