And I too have made some disparaging comments about certain things (Shale/JSF/Craig) in the past (although I regret much of it, especially the things with regard to Craig directly, so I'm not about to do the Googling for you!)... However, I have come to see the "Struts Umbrella" approach as being not necessarily bad or contradictory.
That being said, I also don't see Dakotas' point as being completely unreasonable. Is Struts an umbrella for two different paths, Shale and Action Framework, or is Shale really potentially the next Struts? I do think there is a contradiction there. Dakota may see a conspiracy, I think its more likely just some unfortunate choices or maybe just unfortunate timing. But either way, I *do* think it is confusing for people. I do have to say that I thought the situtation was worse a few weeks ago, and to their credit I think the Struts committers have done a good job of disambiguating what the struture is. Kudos for that. Now as long as things stick to that structure, after the initial shock people may experience over learning "Struts" isn't quite what it was before, I think things will go pretty smoothly. -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com AIM: fzammetti Yahoo: fzammetti MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, December 16, 2005 11:07 am, Patrick Lightbody said: > 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
