Thanks Frank! Your comments are appreciated and obviously well thought out.
> What is there in S2 to truly excite Web 2.0 >developers in S2 as compared to other frameworks? Hmmm. From what I can tell you are describing Web 2.0 in terms of client-heavy scripting language driven websites. In my experience these are sites that are built with amazing speed and feature the latest in front-end usability. So developers of these applications value speed and visual impact. There will always be a place for this sort of development and S2 is not really in that game. In fact, I think S2 should take a step back from its recent attempts to get in that game (*ahem* *dojo* *cough*). Struts2 is the best Java-based framework for building applications intended to survive the test of time. In my experience the applications I create with S2 require significant architectural thought and planning. Not because I am using S2, but because the business problem is unique or challenging. S2 provides me with an unmatchable toolkit to attack just about any requirement I may encounter involving HTTP requests. The time it takes me to write XML config or get CRUD operations up and running for basic domain objects is insignificant compared to the time I spend working on the really tough integration issues that most business applications face. So I guess I was less worried about adoption by developers focused on the arms race to generate CRUD screens at developer conferences and more about the overall cohesion and survivability of the S2 code base and community supporting it. If the community was depleted then I figured we needed to improve our marketing to gain adoption by the level of engineers we have been lucky enough to have as committers so far. I think there is a rather long and steep learning curve for S2 and the related technologies (Hibernate, Spring, Acegi, etc). I personally don't think that is a bad thing but I think that road to the top of that curve can be and will be made more clear. There are some tools that help like Appfuse, JCatapult, StrutsOn or Dusty's Awesome Starter Kit but nothing that has been built by the S2 community for the S2 community. I am encouraged by all the responses. One immediate result may be the creation of a streamlined build process! There is also interest in improving the documentation and examples used to teach S2 to the new developers we hope to hand stuff off to so we can move on to something else ;-). I think the future is bright for S2 because it has a talented and active community as well as an organized and modular code base. So I am glad you asked the question, but I think its difficult to answer depending on the context of Web 2.0 developers. I think I would say, "There has been a burst of frameworks created that focus on speed and/or visual impact. This is good in that it democratizes the creation of data driven web applications. Lets call it the VB-Web-Effect or just VisualWeb for short. S2 would not appeal to the typical VW developer because its focus is lower level with entirely different goals. There may be fewer S2 apps as the number of VW frameworks and apps explode. But by their nature, S2 apps will be more robust and sustainable then their disposable script-based cousins." Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > > dusty wrote: >> So we get more aggressive with our releases. We definitely want to >> preserve >> compatibility but if we have a good reason for breaking compatibility we >> let >> people know and show them how to migrate. At the same time we get more >> aggressive with marketing, by overhauling the website, getting the >> project >> blog going, re-organizing the wiki and documentation, getting the source >> available from Fisheye, maybe even start a conference. Everything but >> the >> conference part seems pretty doable. >> > I for one don't think S2 needs any marketing, or a web site overhaul, or > any of that sort of thing. I can't think of too many projects that have > become a big-time success based on that sort of thing... in fact, JSF is > one great counter-example to that theory. Many people got turned off to > JSF early because for a long time it was nothing but marketing hype. It > basically took people stopping the hype train for a while and actually > churning out some half-way decent technology for it to be seen as > something more at this point. > > I think in terms of die-hard Struts developers, there's decent buy-in > for S2. I think many Struts developers are migrating to S2 (not > necessarily migrating existing apps, but in terms of new development). > Where I get the impression there's a shortcoming is in attracting new > developers. > > Assuming that's true, the question should be why that is... why are > other frameworks gaining mindshare while S2 maybe isn't (or at least not > as fast as it should be given its lineage and Apache branding, which is > still a big positive for any project). I think the answer is twofold. > > First, in terms of what S2 offers, frankly, there's not really a whole > lot that truly excites developers. There's nothing revolutionary about > it. Some would say that's a positive, and part of me would agree, but > when there's so many frameworks to choose from, if you don't have > anything that truly differentiates your offering then it's just going to > be one more option among many. > > I think however that there's a really more fundamental problem that > isn't S2's fault at all: many new development projects, maybe even most > at this point, are (buzzword alert!) Web 2.0 in nature. They are much > more client-heavy and just fundamentally work differently than what > Struts has historically been used to build (yes, that's a generality to > be sure, but I think it is, *generally*, true). If you buy that theory, > then you have to reasonably ask what does S2 offer to make developing > those types of applications easier? > > And then when you have an answer to that question you have to compare it > to other frameworks that people are using for applications of that > nature. Things like ZK, GWT, JSF, Rails, and so on. You can even > compare it to using something like Dojo or Ext JS with a more > lightweight back-end based on something like DWR. Does S2 give me > something tangible compared to those? Does it fundamentally make my job > easier, or my application better? If you are unable to articulate > really clearly and strongly and in a demonstratable fashion where S2 > helps in this regard, then I believe it's a losing proposition. > > To be sure, there *are* some cool things in S2. What I for one don't > see, and I've heard a similar feeling expressed by many as recently as > at The Ajax Experience earlier this month, is a clear, coherent vision > of how S2 lets me develop these so-called Web 2.0 applications better > than any other framework. What is there in S2 to truly excite Web 2.0 > developers in S2 as compared to other frameworks? That to me is the > fundamental question to be answered, and the fundamental reason S2 > doesn't have the uptake many feel it should. I hesitate to put it this > way because it seems potentially unfair, but I'll say it anyway: it's > almost like S2 is standing on the sidelines while the web development > world moves in a fundamentally different direction, and S2 isn't keeping > up as well as it needs to in order to be the success S1 was. > > Please understand I'm not at all being critical of S2 or of anyone > involved in it. These are my impressions of things, but they are in > part based on conversations I've had with other developers expressing > similar thoughts, so I know it's not just me. My hope is that something > constructive can come from these comments, and that's certainly my > purpose in taking the time to write this reply. > > Frank > > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Author of "Practical Dojo Projects" > and "Practical DWR 2 Projects" > and "Practical JavaScript, DOM Scripting and Ajax Projects" > and "Practical Ajax Projects With Java Technology" > (For info: apress.com/book/search?searchterm=zammetti&act=search) > My "look ma, I have a blog too!" blog: zammetti.com/blog > > >> Don has been a kind of de-facto leader for the project. I wonder what he >> is >> thinking..... >> >> >> >> Jeromy Evans - Blue Sky Minds wrote: >> >>> I share similar sentiment. Whenever I take a critical look as to whether >>> to use struts2 I keep coming back to the conclusion that it's >>> fundamentally sound as far as java frameworks go. >>> I'd categorize the problem as not enough generals. Most of us can make >>> incremental improvements or start new plugins but few have the courage >>> to to drive through fundamental changes or remove features. I'd join >>> some kind of coordinated hack-a-thon to break through the inertia. >>> >>> My #1 issue is that it's *too difficult and time-consuming to create a >>> release* on the 2.1 trunk. If releases are difficult and dependent on a >>> few key individuals then momentum slows and the project inevitably >>> stalls. >>> >>> I've been independently tinkering with release process to try to >>> automate all assembly within a CI system so a formal release is an >>> administrative process only, but it's not much fun. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Concerned-Strutszien%3A-A-Manifesto-tp20053620p20159172.html Sent from the Struts - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
