Don, I suppose I generally agree with you.... I guess. The problem is, which
always seems to be the case here in this group, is that every year someone is
trying to answer the question: "What is Struts really about?" At first it was
an action framework, and then it was a JSF framework, and then it was dual
frameworks, and now it is ... what? Depends on who you ask on this mailing list
:-) It's the never ending question.
Solutions are fine. Our obvious disarray on what "Struts" is, is not. When you
look into Spring, what kind of "struts" actions do you have? You have those for
the Action framework. It is pretty solidified in the minds of developers that
Struts = Action Framework. I haven't seen anyone in my life ever go out of
their way to say otherwise. Say the word "Struts" and they know exactly what it
means: the action framework.
But people talk about Shale as not Struts. They don't say "not Struts" but it
is always the implied point that it is a different product, and I'd be lucky if
someone says "Struts" in front of Shale. Except when people want to be really
legalistic, most people just say "Shale" -- the general attitude is that it is
really a different product. Hence, the email chain "do we really need two
frameworks?"
So what is the real Struts? :-) This email chain has thrown around so many
ideas where Shale belongs... an"omnibus", under MyFaces, a new TLP, etc.... I
hope packaging it all together isn't a way out of this debate :-)
Paul
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1ยข/min with Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
