On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Frans Thamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Anything's possible. ;-) But why would you do that? Sure, it might result > in > > S2 eventually becoming part of Java EE, but Struts has been pretty > > successful over the last 8 years or so without that, as have other > > frameworks like Spring and Hibernate. By turning S2 into a JSR, you then > end > > up with "design by committee", and lose much of the ability to innovate > > since you're constrained by what's in the JSR. > > > S2 based on WW, and we know also JCP also have several big company > that spending in this brand, IBM, Oracle, Sun, RedHat, and the user > believe that the standard will make the investment more trusted, of > course Apache is the most trusted one also in non dejure world. using > Apache brand, the movement will still move. Struts was, and probably still is, by far the most popular and widely deployed web framework on the planet, all without the help of the JCP. There are numerous companies that provide commercial support for Struts solely because of that. Some of the companies you list above have invested a lot in Struts to provide tooling for it because of the demand for that tooling, despite it having no "official" status as a standard. > i active in Jetspeed long before Jetspeed become JSR 168, and can u > imagine what happen if Jetspeed develop a non standard tech, what do > you think of pluto? I don't understand your point. Jetspeed 1 existed before JSR 168 and was a proprietary, non-standard portal technology for a long time, because there was no standard back then. Every portal vendor had their own technology. When JSR 168 was formalised, the Pluto code base was donated to the Jetspeed project by IBM as the reference implementation for that. Jetspeed 2 was then designed around JSR 168 and incorporated the Pluto RI. Where is the analogy with Struts? Are you suggesting that, if by some chance the JCP went off and defined a standard action framework that wasn't Struts, and Struts didn't implement that specification, the Struts framework would die? That's a tremendous amount of wild speculation, and not something I would be willing to base any project decisions on at this point in time! > i think the dispatcher mechanism and http and rest tech is the strong > point in struts2 and we cannot see JSF model will got this, because > different approach in development. > > my idea is to make new java people and big company that dont want to > put their risk can use Struts2. They can do that today. Struts has a long history - longer than any other Java web framework - of providing a strong framework with a strong community to back it up. Neither of those things are going away. The other point to remember is that this is an all-volunteer open source project. To my knowledge, none of the Struts committers is paid to work on the development of Struts. Who, exactly, do you imagine would be spending their volunteer time sitting on a JCP committee trying to push S2 through the standards process? It's *highly* unlikely to be the S2 developers, so what you get at the end of the process is highly unlikely to be much like S2. this will make the movement more stronger. We're not a movement, we're an open source project. ;-) -- Martin Cooper > > > > F > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
