on 1/8/02 3:13 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so would collaboration on a web framework
>
> Pete
This happened a long time ago (May 2000) on the PMC list:
When Craig originally proposed Struts, I -1'd it. He assured me that he
would be willing to collaborate together on Turbine and Struts (see the
Third point below), so I changed to a +1 based on that point alone (there is
another message where I made that clear).
Needless to say, Craig lied. So, don't give me anymore shit Peter. I'm tired
of it.
-jon
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:45:17 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] New Jakarta Subproject - "Struts"
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 5/30/2000 11:19 AM, Craig R. McClanahan at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Adding JSP-related stuff into Turbine is also a good idea; it's just not on
my
> > list of interesting things to work on.
> >
> > Craig
>
> Why not just add Struts into Turbine?
>
In my mind, there are several issues:
First, (somewhat paradoxically), is the fact that Turbine does so much for
you. It's comprehensive nature, like any good framework, makes it
correspondingingly tough to get your hands around. Struts focuses on the
MVC architecture (slightly different approach than Action Events but the
same basic idea) plus the use of some JSP custom tags that interact with the
action classes in synergistic ways. One of the ways to view Turbine is
"this is what you graduate to, once you understand what an MVC-architectured
web application looks like."
Second, some of the functionality supported by Turbine is done in ways that
differ from the emerging J2EE standards (for example, connection pools).
Granted, you got there first -- but some of the people who want to build
MVC-based web applications will be doing so with a J2EE server as the target
platform, so they will need to utilize the J2EE approach to things like this
where such an approach exists. This is a philosophy issue for Turbine in
general -- do you want to blaze your own trail in how services are provided,
or do you want to become more J2EE-like? (I don't have the personal energy
or passion needed to productively participate in this discussion -- that's
for the people who really care about Turbine to decide.)
Third, it is a little early to think that anyone (including myself) has a
clear handle on what the optimum integration of JSP into a full-featured
application framework like Turbine should look like. One of the ways to
view Struts is "an incubator for exploring how to do Model 2 apps, using
JSPs and custom tags, in an optimum way." Once the pattern is clear, it
will be lots easier to integrate the final result into Turbine, rather than
doing the integration over and over again as the patterns get refined.
Fourth, over the last year or so on JSP-INTEREST a considerable amount of
discussion has taken place about how to do Model-2 based app designs, using
the fundamental patterns that are implemented in Struts ("similar but
different" to corresponding things in Turbine). Large numbers of people
have asked for a working example because they are new to the whole concept
of writing web apps (to say nothing of the implications of writing code that
works in a multithreaded server environment :-) -- I wish to meet that need
without making them have to learn too much at once.
Finally, longer term, I would not be at all surprised to see the two
approaches merged. That just doesn't help meet a short term need to publish
code so that I can stop describing the pattern over and over again in words
on the mailing lists. A hyperlink to a download is much more concise and
easier to type :-).
>
> -jon
Craig
------ End of Forwarded Message
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
