> 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.
make it the one again :) > 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. in that time, if we develop "portlet", there is portal software, ibm portal .. > > 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! we can call JavaServer ActionFramework and Struts as the implementation of it. so Struts can get JSR 123 and we can add several controller implemenation, if SpringMVC guy in abroad. but of course Struts ActionSupport is the simplest one i > We're not a movement, we're an open source project. ;-) i am not just a struts2 supporter, since webwork 2.0 in our country, and i see that the component framework is more stronger than action, and people keep compare Struts with JSF, i think this is not apple to apple F --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
