Re: Freekmarker vs. Velocity
locity, there is a pretty strong consensus among technically informed people in favor of FreeMarker. As for JSP or other things, like XSLT maybe, or Groovy or JRuby, they aren't directly comparable in the same way that FreeMarker and Velocity are. At the same time it may be useful to compare these to why a JRuby-based or Grails-based action/result may be more suitable. Blog anyone? Well, again, you're bringing in things that aren't directly comparable in the way that FreeMarker and Velocity are. And that was the topic at hand. Limited to those two things, the case for FreeMarker is just devastating, I think. It is not an objective source obviously, but I think the following covers the points: http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2007/12/velocity-of-freemarker-looking-at-5.html And it's not unfair to link it, I suppose, because if the Velocity people cared to write a rebuttal, they have the right to, and you could link that as well. That blog article contains links to some other blog articles detailing a switch from Velocity to FreeMarker. http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/AStoryAboutFreeMarkerAndVelocity http://blog.nominet.org.uk/tech/2005/06/29/moving-from-velocity-to-freemarker http://blogs.sun.com/satya/entry/migrate_to_freemarker_from_velocity Of course, you could say that the above ones are cherry picked to support the case for FreeMarker. But actually, go look for similar blog articles about a move in the opposite direction. You'll come up empty handed, I dare say. Oh, and as for FreeMarker vs. JSP, Jive Software, whose flagship product is built on Webwork 2 and FreeMarker, switched from JSP to FreeMarker. Here is some discussion by the Jive developers on that. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.freemarker.user/2984 http://www.jivesoftware.com/community/blogs/clearspace/2007/07/20/the-switch-to-freemarker Note the last point Bruce made there on our mailing list: "It's powerful enough for our needs -- velocity didn't have the features we required." This does seem to contradict the idea that Struts 2 users would not need the extra power that FreeMarker offers. Just one data point admittedly, but it tells you something. Well, 'nuff said, I guess. In some private conversation, one of my collaborators on FreeMarker pointed to the quote above on your site about FreeMarker vs. Velocity and, you know, basically said that it was highly annoying... there's a strong sense out there (right or wrong) that something like this is an example of you bending over backwards to be charitable to a fellow ASF project. I had seen that page before and that was my impression as well. I dunno... Do what you want, but I don't think you're doing anybody any favors by holding back on telling the unvarnished truth about this kind of thing. I don't think that it's even a favor to the Velocity community, though, you know, if some of the blogs I have linked never shook them out of their complacency, I don't know what would... :-) Regards, Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Freekmarker vs. Velocity
Jeromy Evans wrote: I have been of two minds whether to pursue this conversation and make certain points. I strongly disagree with some of things you're saying here, so, finally, I'll just make the points that I think need to be made on this topic. I don't think there's a need for any further debate about any of it. It seems you do recognize that the quote on the page in question is outrageously misleading, and should be remedied. One thing I'll say up front is that I can't really look at this as a favor to me or our community. You should be doing this because it's what's in the interest of your user community and just the general public out there. Jonathan Revusky wrote: Thanks for the detailed argument Jonathon. Jeromy Evans wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: I just saw the following comment "FreeMarker is very similar to Velocity, as both are template languages that can be used outside of a Servlet container. The framework utilizes FreeMarker because FreeMarker has better error reporting. However, both are good alternatives to JSP." I've questioned that a few times myself. The paragraph doesn't do FreeMarker much justice from a technical sense, but then again, most Struts 2 users won't exploit the features FreeMarker offers above Velocity, What is your basis for thinking this? It's clear enough from the freemarker-user list that people do use advanced features of the tool that are not in Velocity. I just don't see offhand why the usage patterns of people using FreeMarker in conjunction with Struts 2 would be particularly different from users in general. Though, the other thing is that, even if the assertion were true, I don't know how you would know it was... it seems like a seat of the pants conjecture... The basis of my conjecture is that Struts 2 provides little support for FreeMarker's more advanced features, so most users won't exploit those features. To me, this makes little sense. It would seem that we have completely different conceptual models of what is going on here. From my perspective (though maybe I am the one mistaken...) you have certain fundamental misconceptions. There is basically no need for a framework like Struts 2 to explicitly support FreeMarker's more advanced features. They're just there if needed. Translatinf this idea to a JRuby result or a Groovy result. we could say that if the front end coding is in Ruby, the view could use a very small set of Ruby's language features or a much larger one. But that has almost nothing to do with the controller used. And the same applies to the use of FreeMarker's template language. Whether a project makes very sophisticated use of FreeMarker's macro capabilities would depend mostly on the project's requirements (and also on the skill/experience level of the front-end coders) not on whether the project was using Struts 2 or Stripes or Spring MVC, say. You see, the fundamental usage pattern is that you expose your data model to a page template and produce output. In terms of using FreeMarker, how the data got to the template layer (whether it was put there by Struts 2 or by Stripes or whatever) is irrelevant and doesn't have anything or at least very little to do with the complexity or sophistication of the templates. As regards more sophisticated uses of templating, I was thinking about this a while back and wrote a blog entry with some (possibly wooly-headed) ideas. http://freemarker.blogspot.com/2006/07/designerdeveloper-division-of-labor.html The above is worth reading if you want to understand my perspective on this sort of thing, and some of the thinking behind FreeMarker. The model provided to FreeMarker is a map containing the request, response, ValueStack and a few other basic structures, where access to the ValueStack (Struts2's core model) is limited to Struts2 tags to in order to access OGNL. I don't know the history, but it appears the FreeMarkerResult[1] was designed to be equivalent to the Velocity implementation rather than to exploit FreeMarker features. Similarly, although the Struts 2 tags use FreeMarker templates, the model is limited and the templates don't encourage what I think you'd consider to be best-practice. My conjecture still stands, that "as built", most Struts 2 users won't exploit FreeMaker's better features. That's not meant as a criticism of FreeMarker. Take a quick look at the source: [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/core/src/main/java/org/apache/struts2/views/freemarker/ [2] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/struts/struts2/trunk/core/src/main/resources/template/css_xhtml/ Well, I provided the link to a discussion of FreeMarker vs. JSP from Jive Software developers. Jive's product is built on top of Webwork and
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Frank W. Zammetti wrote: +1 (non-binding) here. If I had my druthers I would have gone with "saf", but "ti" works for me too, no objection. I don't understand. Why not just use webwork if it comes to that, rather than saf or ti. At least that acknowledges the heritage of the thing. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemrker.org/ Frank Don Brown wrote: Ok, after listening to all the feedback, here is my revised renaming strategy proposal: - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti - WebWork* classes -> Struts* - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2 - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts. - ww: tag prefix -> a: Since Ti is the code name for Action 2 and there is significant precident within Apache for naming next gen code using a code name, I'm proposing the org.apache.struts.ti package. Besides, our JavaOne session is called "What's up with Struts Ti?', so I guess we're stuck with it. :) I'm kinda against 'saf', as I get my fill of acronyms from my day job (US DoD) :) I'd like to get this resolved quickly, so I can start the massive renaming work this weekend. Thanks for all the good feedback so far, Don Don Brown wrote: I've renamed the WebWork packages, and both the code compiles and all tests pass correctly. However, as I start with the greater renaming task, I thought I'd propose a strategy and get some feedback on it: - WebWork* classes -> Action2* classes - WebWork in comments and documentation -> Struts Action 2 - webwork in comments, documentation, and as a properties prefix -> action2 - ww: tag prefix -> a2 What does everyone think? Did I miss anything? I know the '2' seems unnecessary, but it does match our package name (org.apache.struts.action2), which is necessary so that Action 2 and Action 1 apps can live side-by-side. Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Hubert Rabago wrote: On 3/24/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't see the problem with Action2 either. Hopefully, we will someday see an Action3 and Action4 too. But, regardless of what I think, I would suggest that we wait a few days and give the other new committers a chance to chime in. Ian indicated a preference for saf, and the other new committers might have a preference too. +0. Or +1 if I had time to volunteer. I could live with action2 as well. Now that I'm seeing this renaming from this perspective though, I'm wishing some of it mentions WebWork. In fact I wish we could do something like org.apache.struts.webwork. I don't know how that would look like, though. - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.webwork Actually, the above is the renaming that seems to make the most sense a priori. This is the exact same code now being hosted under org.apache.struts (struts now being an umbrella of sorts) so simply changing com.opensymphony -> org.apache.struts is the most natural thing. It is the transition that would be readily clearest to webwork users transitioning to the apache-hosted code. It's up to the webwork people (it's their work and I'm just a casual observer) but if it were my work, I would be insisting that the webwork name remain at this package naming level. - WebWork* classes -> WebWork* - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts WebWork - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> webwork. - ww: tag prefix -> ww: No obvious reason to change this prefix. Why should existing webwork users have to deal with a frivolous prefix change like that? That's my 2c. Like tm jee (TJ?), I'd be okay with any naming strategy the community settles on. I understand of course that technically it makes no difference, but my sense of things is that if the webwork people passively let the Struts people remove the string "webwork" from all these package names, they will not be starting off this relationship on the best foot. The Struts people will cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork" and "ww" from all the code, isn't there? Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ Hubert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Paul Benedict wrote: cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork" and "ww" from all the code, isn't there? Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? Well, at the marketing level, maybe. That this necessarily translates to excising the string "webwork" from all the package names is less obvious. As an outside observer, I see no need to systematically remove the string "webwork" from everywhere as if it were a curse word. Also, my understanding was that Struts is now an "umbrella" and that the gain was from being under that umbrella. I don't see how this requires the string "webwork" or "ww" to be excised from everywhere, down to the nth level of package names -- in particular, once the package names start with org.apache.struts. It would more imply excising the string "opensymphony" from everywhere -- which is a step that I find completely understandable, since opensymphony is an umbrella and webwork is moving from that umbrella over to this one. I thought it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not for the name? Well, there is no "Struts 2.0" really. At least that's my understanding of the official line now. Struts is an umbrella. You have Struts Action and Struts Shale. I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage, but this entire process doesn't make any sense unless you're specficially wanting to be rebranded as Struts. Well, my guess is that the motivation of the Webwork people for this was to *gain* the Apache/Struts name, not particularly to *lose* the Webwork name. If Apache/Struts is now an umbrella, that implies replacing the string "OpenSymphony" rather than the "Webwork" string. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Ted Husted wrote: On 3/25/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? I thought it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not for the name? I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage, but this entire process doesn't make any sense unless you're specficially wanting to be rebranded as Struts. -- Paul From a historical perspective, it might be worthwile to note that the process begin with a post that Patrick Lightbody made to the "Java Web Alignment Group", in which Patrick said that he would like to see WebWork "join forces" with another project. Don and I followed up with Patrick and Jason. Our initial discussions are archived here: * http://opensource2.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/STRUTS2/Home Whlie we were having these discussions, several other developers became active within WebWork and also became WW committers. To include these people in the process, we broadened the incubator proposal and asked the other WW committers if they wanted to sign on. * http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@struts.apache.org/msg17308.html Everyone choose to do so, and here we are. -Ted. Ted, none of what you say or link above provides a rationale for removing the string "webwork" from all package names. If this sets well with the Webwork people, then I guess it really is their business. But I have been trying to imagine (obviously counterfactually) a situation where we would give FreeMarker to ASF -- and the very first thing done in the code is to excise the string "freemarker" from every last place, including n levels deep in package hierarchies. You know, there has been a community that has existed for years. You had people who donated code, who partook in discussions of new features, submitted bug reports. Anybody who donated to the project in any given way could feel a sense that they contributed in some way to this. Why not leave a bit of the heritage of the product history there in the package naming convention at least? I think that's more fair to all the people who extended themselves -- however minimally -- to bring this body of work up to its current point. You leave something there that allows people to see that this is something that they (however minimally in some cases) contributed to. A lot of people put work into this and I think it would be better to show some respect for the history of this project that you are basically getting dropped in your lap. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Paul Benedict wrote: Johnathan, I don't see the necessity of a problem from within your viewpoint. Struts 2.0 is going to be built from WebWork; I suppose you can consider Struts 2.0 a fork of WebWork, Well, it's not _really_ a fork. The main Webwork developers are coming over here. But in any case, I'm not at all arguing about the legalities of what can be done with forked code or not. Really, my objections are not in the realm of what is legal, as I'm sure ASF has that covered. My objections are more in the realm of what is good taste. My sense of things is that systematically excising the strings "webwork" and "ww" from everywhere as if they were curse words is in very questionable taste. But I recognize that it could be a matter of "Each to their own taste". Also, I have made no bones about the fact that I consider this whole "merger" to be in very questionable taste anyway, and other people obviously don't share that feeling, so you know... because, unless I am unaware of something here, this doesn't prevent other people from developing WebWork if they want to continue it. It is going to become a different product and probably contain new things WW may not want to do on its own. So, I understand your perspective, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the way things are being handled. And as Ted pointed out, WW folks are on board with this. -- Paul Well, yeah, of course they can do what they want. It's not my code in this instance, so you have no particular need to pay much heed to me. OTOH, I consider it likely that other people might feel that same unease and not be expressing it... Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ --- Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Paul Benedict wrote: cry that they are so innocent and all (such wonderful people) but surely there is some agenda in wanting to excise "webwork" and "ww" from all the code, isn't there? Isn't the purpose of this to excise the webwork name? Well, at the marketing level, maybe. That this necessarily translates to excising the string "webwork" from all the package names is less obvious. As an outside observer, I see no need to systematically remove the string "webwork" from everywhere as if it were a curse word. Also, my understanding was that Struts is now an "umbrella" and that the gain was from being under that umbrella. I don't see how this requires the string "webwork" or "ww" to be excised from everywhere, down to the nth level of package names -- in particular, once the package names start with org.apache.struts. It would more imply excising the string "opensymphony" from everywhere -- which is a step that I find completely understandable, since opensymphony is an umbrella and webwork is moving from that umbrella over to this one. I thought it was. Why else would you want to become "Struts 2.0" if not for the name? Well, there is no "Struts 2.0" really. At least that's my understanding of the official line now. Struts is an umbrella. You have Struts Action and Struts Shale. I don't see this renaming as a slam against the heritage, but this entire process doesn't make any sense unless you're specficially wanting to be rebranded as Struts. Well, my guess is that the motivation of the Webwork people for this was to *gain* the Apache/Struts name, not particularly to *lose* the Webwork name. If Apache/Struts is now an umbrella, that implies replacing the string "OpenSymphony" rather than the "Webwork" string. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Struts 1.3.1 - When?
Paul Benedict wrote: Now that 1.2 is EOL (end of line), what's the timeframe for the 1.3.1 release? I ask this because now that so many people are dedicated to 2.0, I am a bit concerned this product might drop out of people's sight. -- Paul I believe that is the intention, for Webwork (rechristed Struts Action 2) to supersede Struts 1.x. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reading too much into java package names
Don Brown wrote: If we used the 'webwork' name in the package, I think we should abandon the idea of this being the second major version of Action. Don, Java packages are just a technical disposition for avoiding name collisions. There is no actual necessity to have that there be a particularly strong correspondence between package (or class) names and the actual name of the product on the box (or the virtual box in this case.) Now, there is a convention (that is only loosely followed out there) that the first parts of the package indicate where it can be found on the net. (As a practical matter, not a big deal, since google is your friend...) But that convention would imply that the thing should start: org.apache.* or org.apache.struts.* since struts.apache.org is now considered some sort of umbrella, and besides, the struts.apache.org is the canonical website location, I guess. The above aspects follow an established convention and make perfect sense. But, aside from that, in general, you can rename a java software product from foo to bar to baz for whatever marketing reasons without renaming *any* actual java packages. Well, in short, I think you are reasoning on the basis of a logical fallacy. Given that java package names do not have the transcendental implications you attribute to them, maybe you should just let the webwork people decide on the package naming (after the org.apache.* part) -- it is that community's work after all. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ In my opinion, a project needs to have a name, a single name, which one uses to identify it. If we want to bring WebWork in as a new Struts subproject, and that is an option, then I'm fine with that. However, I'm not OK with mixing webwork in with Action in with Struts. We need to make a decision, then move on. Don Niall Pemberton wrote: +1 to webwork - "org.apache.webwork" if thats allowed, otherwise "org.apache.struts.webwork". Niall On 3/27/06, Rainer Hermanns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey there, if webwork is an option as well, I would vote for org.apache.webwork :) The tag prefix ui: won't be my choice... There are plenty of non-ui tags within webwork. So this would result in something like: ui:/nonui: and this would be quite annoying for me... Same with html: prefix... Yes, some are html tags, but others are not... So we would have to go the logic:, bean: and html: route... Too much confusion... Still my favourites are saf: or a: (and being sometimes lazy, ww: of course :) ) cheers, Rainer PS: Can't we decide on this later if there is no consens now? Since this is a simple refactoring with subversion it should not hold up the incubation process for now... - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.action2 - WebWork* classes -> Struts* - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2 - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts. - ww: tag prefix -> a:/saf: +1 I would also be +1 to: - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.webwork or org.apache.webwork - ww: tag prefix -> ui: -- James Mitchell On Mar 25, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Ted Husted wrote: STATUS so far - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.ti - WebWork* classes -> Struts* - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2 - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts. - ww: tag prefix -> a: +1 Don Brown, Martin Cooper (binding) +1 Frank Zammetti (non-binding) - com.opensymphony.webwork package -> org.apache.struts.action2 - WebWork* classes -> Struts* - WebWork in comments, documentation -> Struts Action 2 - webwork. as the configuration properties prefix -> struts. - ww: tag prefix -> a:/saf: +1 Rainer Hermanns, Ted Husted, Alexandru Popescu, Rene Gielen (binding) +0 Toby Jee, Hubert Rabago (binding) +1 Paul Benedict (non-binding) If I've left any votes out, or gotten any of the votes wrong, be sure to chime in! -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised*
Gabe wrote: I agree with Don and Paul. The webwork as dear to us as it may be should be excised. - Original Message From: Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Struts Developers List Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 3:55:50 PM Subject: Re: WebWork renaming strategy *revised* I am +1 with Don. If this community wants the name webwork, A package name, in particular, at the third or fourth level of a package hierarchy, is not a product's name. At least not necessarily. (It could be by coincidence.) It's just a package name. So all of this is based on a first-rate logical fallacy. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ then I believe this incubation shouldn't become Struts 2.0 -- because names are well-established out there and it's awkward to say it's Struts although the packages are webwork; you might as well just make it Apache WebWork and allow Action 2.0 to come from another source base... but I don't think anyone wants to seriously do that ;) The ball is rolling, so I recommend to "excise" the name WW from the product (in favor of "action2") unless you want to call it WW 2.3. -- Paul --- Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: This has gone too far.
Don Brown wrote: How Struts adds committers isn't "fair" I don't think fairness is really the issue. I guess when you talk about that, you are meaning to imply that anybody who is disagreeing about certain things is a whiner. Frank Z., quite diplomatically, used the term "suboptimal". Of course, that was a euphemism if there ever was one. The record of this Struts project in moving things forward is utterly dismal. (Obviously, I don't count the step of bringing in a competing codebase developed outside ASF and relabeling it as "Apache Struts" as forward progress in this context.) Rather than fairness, I think the appropriate thing to concentrate on is effectiveness. The approach you've taken to running the project over the last several years simply has not been effective. Given the dismal results, that you have to answer some pointed questions about your project management practices is really to be expected you know, Anything else would IMO be abnormal. - code quality, community involvement, trust, and yes, personal taste are all factors. The PMC members are the gate keepers, and being human, they show favoritism, bias, and sometimes poor judgment. Well, in other words, people, being human, make mistakes. However, *responsible* people take responsibility for their mistaskes. And they try to learn from it and do better next time. > You may not like it, but that's the way it is. Don, I don't think you guys are going to really get anywhere with this approach. I really don't. Great. Can we move on now? I doubt it. I think you're going to have to engage in the discussion. Well, you might succeed in bullying people into shutting up in this instance. It has worked before. But the basic issues will just keep coming back. Eventually, you'll have to engage in the discussion. So I would say that, since you have to bite the bullet eventually, you might as well do it now and get the benefits sooner rather than later. Struts isn't some damn social club, where we sit around and gossip about the neighbors. Well, that it's not some damn social club is why a legitimate discussion shouldn't be shut down just because it causes discomfort or even embarassment to some people. Struts is about building great web frameworks, however, I feel we have strayed from this path and lost our focus. If we, committers and contributors alike, spent half the time committing code and contributing patches as we do bickering, complaining, and "offering our opinions", we'd be on Struts 4 by now! Let's stop this nonsense, and get back to work! Do you have too much free time on your hands? Great, there is much to be done: Don, this basic idea that you can tell people "Shut up and get back to work"... this is not an approach that I think is going to work very well. Even in a company setting, where it is more of a valid approach, since people are getting paid after all, sometimes there has to be an airing of the issues. But in this setting, where you can't threaten to fire somebody, hence causing them and their family significant economic distress, the "shut up and get back to work" approach is surely doomed to failure. As a guy who is also admin on a fairly well known open source project, and has grappled with the issues, I would suggest (strongly) that you find some other way of motivating people to do some heavy lifting. Because the approach embodied by this last note of yours is not going to work. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ - Struts Action 1: We finally got the build working and hav"e built a test build. I haven't heard a single comment from anyone who has downloaded it and given it a shot. If you want a stable Struts Action 1 release and more to come, get off your butt and help out! - Struts Action 2: With most of the IP code out of the way, we've started some great discussions on features to include in the next release. While this is important, we also need to get some sort of release out by JavaOne. We need people polishing up the code, updating wiki docs, testing examples, writing migration guides, and fixing bugs. - Tiles: For such a popular framework, it is a shame how few people contribute (only one active maintainer (!)). Greg is working on a standalone version of Tiles that would support Struts, Spring MVC, or anyone else. If you use Tiles, jump in and help Greg with the refactoring. We definitely will be looking for committers when this moves to Jakarta. - Struts Shale (yes it is an equal Struts project, get over it): There still hasn't been a GA release of Shale that I know of. We need people writing docs, fixing bugs, and providing key feedback to help polish this product. My personal than
Re: Proposal for change
Martin Cooper wrote: On 4/25/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is the kind of stupid, assinine comment What is stupid or assinine about pointing out that your count is incorrect? It *is* incorrect. You counted 4 posts to the dev list. To quote you directly: "I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg Reddin's history" I provided a URL which demonstrates that that statement is incorrect. But if the actual count is 3 instead of 4, that reinforces Dakota's point, doesn't it? (And even if it was 7 or 8....sheesh....) You guys Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ -- Martin Cooper that is really what trolling is all about. There are clearly more than I found by doing a general search for Redding. Try doing one for Frank and see what happens, Martin. I really could vomit when I hear that feminine English "pity". On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/25/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is a case in point: I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg Reddin's history. Pity you can't count. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?w=2&r=1&s=greg.reddin&q=a -- Martin Cooper He is a committer. On the user list there is also virtually nothing. What stands out is that he was interested in a couple of posts in Shale. What is the possible reason he is a committer and Frank is not? Is this the Way Different Struts-Apache Way. This is crazy! Do people actually believe Ted and Craig? On 4/25/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: That depends entirely on your meaning of the word "closed". You make the argument that the number of new committers means it isn't closed, and I agree with you to a degree. But that's not the only meaning of "closed"... the invitations to those people came *soley* from the PMC AFAIK... the community had no say in it. That's the thing my proposal seeks to address, that the initiation of someone being invited doesn't necessarily have to come from those already there (although they would still have the final say-so). I have some serious concerns about this. Let me just use myself as an example. I've been a committer for about 6 months or so. I have absolutely no idea what sort of discussion took place before I received that invitation. If there was someone among the PMC who was vehemently opposed to my nomination I'm glad they had a confidential forum in which to discuss their concerns. Now that I am a committer I can have an unbiased conversation with anybody else in the group without any preconceived notion of what that individual's opinion of me might be. Truly, I don't have confidence that either user@ or dev@ is a place where concerns can be expressed openly without fear of unprofessional response. It's just too easy for this kind of discussion to turn into personal attacks in a forum such as user@ or even [EMAIL PROTECTED] When Struts was a Jakarta subproject I remember committer votes taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always felt just a little uneasy about it. 99 times out of 100 it was a unanimous +1 with no discussion. But I seem to recall at least one case when concerns were expressed (sorry, I don't remember the specifics, please correct me if I'm wrong). I feel really bad that this person's personal merit would have to be discussed in a public forum. I understand some others' concerns about the community appearing to be closed, but I think there should be a barrier to entry. Maybe it's too high, but it seems to me that it should exist. After all it's basically a lifetime appointment and revocations are very rare if one has ever happened at all. Greg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal for change
Jonathan Revusky wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: On 4/25/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is the kind of stupid, assinine comment What is stupid or assinine about pointing out that your count is incorrect? It *is* incorrect. You counted 4 posts to the dev list. To quote you directly: "I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg Reddin's history" I provided a URL which demonstrates that that statement is incorrect. But if the actual count is 3 instead of 4, that reinforces Dakota's point, doesn't it? (And even if it was 7 or 8sheesh Oops, I made a mistake. I misread the page Martin pointed to. Greg has posted quite a bit more than 3 or 4 posts. So I have to retract the above comment. Using search.gmane.org, I get for Greg: 102 on struts-user and 108 on struts-devel -- 210 total (I'm not sure I'm not double-counting here since some might be cross-posts.) On Frank Z., the equivalent numbers I get are: 1231 on struts-user and 381 on struts-devel 1612 total. To see how I searched, see, for example: http://search.gmane.org/?query=&email=Frank+Zammetti&group=gmane.comp.jakarta.struts.devel&sort=date&DEFAULTOP=and&xFILTERS=Gcomp.jakarta.struts.user-Afrank+zammetti---A Dakota's point, that Frank was much more active in the community does seem to stand. We're talking 3 binary orders of magnitude here. Note that I'm not saying that this is some definitive proof of anything either. But I think it's fair to say that there is a real lack of clarity as to who gets admitted to the club and who doesn't. Also, the point stands that, whatever has been happening up until now has basically yielded dismal results and it makes perfect sense to ask certain questions about what has been going on. You guys Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ -- Martin Cooper that is really what trolling is all about. There are clearly more than I found by doing a general search for Redding. Try doing one for Frank and see what happens, Martin. I really could vomit when I hear that feminine English "pity". On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/25/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is a case in point: I count four (4) posts to the dev list in Greg Reddin's history. Pity you can't count. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?w=2&r=1&s=greg.reddin&q=a -- Martin Cooper He is a committer. On the user list there is also virtually nothing. What stands out is that he was interested in a couple of posts in Shale. What is the possible reason he is a committer and Frank is not? Is this the Way Different Struts-Apache Way. This is crazy! Do people actually believe Ted and Craig? On 4/25/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: That depends entirely on your meaning of the word "closed". You make the argument that the number of new committers means it isn't closed, and I agree with you to a degree. But that's not the only meaning of "closed"... the invitations to those people came *soley* from the PMC AFAIK... the community had no say in it. That's the thing my proposal seeks to address, that the initiation of someone being invited doesn't necessarily have to come from those already there (although they would still have the final say-so). I have some serious concerns about this. Let me just use myself as an example. I've been a committer for about 6 months or so. I have absolutely no idea what sort of discussion took place before I received that invitation. If there was someone among the PMC who was vehemently opposed to my nomination I'm glad they had a confidential forum in which to discuss their concerns. Now that I am a committer I can have an unbiased conversation with anybody else in the group without any preconceived notion of what that individual's opinion of me might be. Truly, I don't have confidence that either user@ or dev@ is a place where concerns can be expressed openly without fear of unprofessional response. It's just too easy for this kind of discussion to turn into personal attacks in a forum such as user@ or even [EMAIL PROTECTED] When Struts was a Jakarta subproject I remember committer votes taking place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I always felt just a little uneasy about it. 99 times out of 100 it was a unanimous +1 with no discussion. But I seem to recall at least one case when concerns were expressed (sorry, I don't remember the specifics, please correct me if I'm wrong). I feel really bad that this person's personal merit would have to be discussed in a public forum. I understand some others' concerns about the community appe
Re: Proposal for change
Dakota Jack wrote: Doesn't this kind of talk sound goofy to you all? Isn't this reference to the Apache Way sort of like a secret handshake and a silly hat? It's all that, yes, but it's also not very honest, I'd say. You see, the various scripture on the so-called "Apache Way" claims that the ASF is run as a "meritocracy". What you see here is that the Struts committers, after years of not achieving much, have invited in the Webwork people with the intention of relabelling Webwork as Struts Action 2 (when the existing Struts codebase is Struts Action 1). They tacitly accept that the Webwork people ran the better project technically, did the better work. Well, once you accept that the other people did the better work, and you have a meritocracy, then those other people, who have more merit, they run the show. The logic of this looks unassailble to me. So, by what basic principle does the existing Struts PMC remain in control of the project when they accept that the other people did better work? The only principle I see is the principle of incumbency or tenure. When people who did inferior work remain the managers of a project (and ostensibly manage the people who did the better work) and this is by virtue of incumbency or tenure, you don't have a meritocracy. So, actually, seriously applying the principles outlined about meritocracy would necessarily imply an extreme shake-up in the Struts project. However, in a typically ass backwards way, the "Apache Way" stuff is being used as a rhetorical instrument to quell dissent -- "don't rock the boat". As another example of ass backwards rhetoric, in his "This has gone too far" post, Don Brown implies that the reason for a lack of forward progress is the presence of that discussion. But that is 180ยบ away. That and other such discussions came about precisely because of the lack of forward progress. The causality is in completely the other direction. Of course, it's clear why there's an attempt to shut down any discussion that casts doubt on the way in which certain people are club members and others are not. It has nothing to do with any "Apache Way". It can't be openly discussed because, in reality, the incumbent managers of the project do not have a leg to stand on. If they accepted the basic logic of a meritocracy, Don and Ted and the rest would have to just resign and let new people in. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ FreeMarker blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ Let's say what the Struts Way is. It is not, I would strongly suggest even slightly related to the Apache Way. I am also strongly considering just never coming back here. I am getting just to sick of the plain and unvarinshed stupidity on this list. On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/25/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, April 25, 2006 2:22 pm, Paul Speed said: Frank W. Zammetti wrote: You are of course right about this. But, much like taking the ideas about inventory control and order processing and such from Dell and starting your own business is possible, the likelihood that you would get anything but a small fraction of the attention and business that Dell gets is slim to none. Not to sidle in where I don't really belong but perhaps this last sentence exemplifies the disconnect with "getting it"? If one wanted to take the code from an apache project and do something else with it then all they care about is the something else they want to do. It isn't really a "business"... the code exists for the code's sake. You aren't chiming in where you don't belong... if your interested, you belong, at least as far as I'm concerned :) I think there is definitely something to your point, and the analogy may have been a bit flawed. However... I don't think it is accurate to think that ego doesn't play a part in just about everything that just about everyone does. We all want to see our work benefit others. For most of us I believe its because we genuinely like the feeling we get when someone writes us and says "hey, your code really helped me, thank you!". I know speaking for myself, it makes my day when I get those eMails! Part of it is simply the ego stroke of someone essentially saying your work is worth something, but I don't believe that is the big factor for most people. I know it isn't for me, and I don't think it is for the Struts team. I think the thank you note means as much to them as it does me. If you agree with that, then the idea of forking the code and doing it with the belief that you aren't going to reach a wide audience because the Apache version continues to be what people go
Re: Proposal for change
Daniel Warner wrote: On 4/27/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dakota Jack wrote: Doesn't this kind of talk sound goofy to you all? Isn't this reference to the Apache Way sort of like a secret handshake and a silly hat? It's all that, yes, but it's also not very honest, I'd say. You see, the various scripture on the so-called "Apache Way" claims that the ASF is run as a "meritocracy". What you see here is that the Struts committers, after years of not achieving much, have invited in the Webwork people with the intention of relabelling Webwork as Struts Action 2 (when the existing Struts codebase is Struts Action 1). They tacitly accept that the Webwork people ran the better project technically, did the better work. Well, once you accept that the other people did the better work, and you have a meritocracy, then those other people, who have more merit, they run the show. The logic of this looks unassailble to me. That's because you don't understand what you're talking about. The "meritocracy" idea at Apache is not about who does the work best. It's just about who does the work. You do the work, you make decisions. You're joking, aren't you, Daniel? You're saying this is a "meritocracy" in which you gain merit by doing work, but the quality of the work doesn't matter? OMG... I think maybe you're serious... Well, that's just ridiculous, isn't it C'mon... So, by what basic principle does the existing Struts PMC remain in control of the project when they accept that the other people did better work? The only principle I see is the principle of incumbency or tenure. That's a problem with your vision. There are plenty of reasons: 1) it's more about doing the work than doing the work "better". No further comment. 2) SAF 2/WebWork is still in incubation. It's not even actually part of Struts yet. The "incubator" is just ASF pseudoreality. It doesn't correspond to anything real. It makes no sense in this context. An actual incubator is something you use to hatch eggs, or sometimes it refers to a kind of environment that prematurely born babies are put in, because they could not survive in the outside world yet. The living entity that you incubate is not even an infant, it is something in an embryonic state. Talking about how Webwork is still in "incubation" does not reflect anything real, because Webwork is not an unborn baby or even an infant. It is the moral equivalent of an adult, a peer of the Struts project and other projects in its space. This whole business of mature projects like Webwork being "incubated" is just yet another striking example of the kind of bizarre use of words that is resorted to when people talk about this so-called "Apache Way". The "incubator" is like the "meritocracy". Even though the term is being used as a kind of analogy, it does such violence to the normal meaning of the English word that it's hard to even have a sensible conversation about it. 3) The Struts PMC currently oversees Shale, Tiles, and SAF 1. WebWork is not the only project here. Until recently, SAF 1 was simply what was called "Struts". The status of the Struts developers is based on the existence of that codebase. My point was that, when they accept that Webwork is simply better, as evidenced by calling it SAF 2, when Struts itself is SAF 1, this means that the Webwork people did superior work. People who did inferior work overseeing or managing the people who did the better work, does not, prima facie, correspond to the basic logic and structure of what anybody would call a meritocracy. When people who did inferior work remain the managers of a project (and ostensibly manage the people who did the better work) and this is by virtue of incumbency or tenure, you don't have a meritocracy. And all you have is a strawman. Pay attention to how things actually are run around here. I've been watching. The PMC doesn't "manage" other committers. Maybe they don't. However, I think the 'M' in PMC stands for "management". But okay, the PMC doesn't actually do any managing, the incubator doesn't do anything that anybody sensible would call "incubating". The "merit" in the meritocracy has nothing to do with the quality of anybody's work... Fine, be my guest Really, when people accuse one of not understanding the "Apache Way", it may be a kind of compliment. Frankly, I would be automatically quite suspicious of anybody who asserts that they really understand all this stuff. Now, okay, the projects that want to get branded as Apache projects, the people involved have to
Re: Tea Time with the Trolls (Was: Re: Proposal for change)
Daniel Warner wrote: I think I see a pattern here. Put a short email in favor of Apache to Jonathan, and you get a huge one in return. Well, if you didn't want me to respond, you shouldn't have written your comments. The more you try to actually argue with his points, the longer and more condescending the response. It is almost like free energy! Someone ought to invent a power station to harness this amazing source of energy and time so that it is not a total waste any more! Hmm. I wonder if agreeing with him will reduce his response or perhaps even give me the last word! Would that be a first? Let's give it a go: On 4/27/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Daniel Warner wrote: The "meritocracy" idea at Apache is not about who does the work best. It's just about who does the work. You do the work, you make decisions. You're joking, aren't you, Daniel? You're saying this is a "meritocracy" in which you gain merit by doing work, but the quality of the work doesn't matter? Well, that's just ridiculous, isn't it C'mon... You are right. It is ridiculous to say that the quality of the work does not matter. Did i really say that? Yes, it seems you really said that. Well, if you think that is what I said, you must be correct. Well, there is an electronic archive of the conversation. It seems that you were saying that the fact that people did work was what mattered, independently of quality. OMG What could I have been thinking? I don't think you were thinking very much. It would be a good idea if you did though. 2) SAF 2/WebWork is still in incubation. It's not even actually part of Struts yet. The "incubator" is just ASF pseudoreality. It doesn't correspond to anything real. It makes no sense in this context. An actual incubator is something you use to hatch eggs, or sometimes it refers to a kind of environment that prematurely born babies are put in, because they could not survive in the outside world yet. The living entity that you incubate is not even an infant, it is something in an embryonic state. Talking about how Webwork is still in "incubation" does not reflect anything real, because Webwork is not an unborn baby or even an infant. It is the moral equivalent of an adult, a peer of the Struts project and other projects in its space. This whole business of mature projects like Webwork being "incubated" is just yet another striking example of the kind of bizarre use of words that is resorted to when people talk about this so-called "Apache Way". The "incubator" is like the "meritocracy". Even though the term is being used as a kind of analogy, it does such violence to the normal meaning of the English word that it's hard to even have a sensible conversation about it. I think you are on to something here. Please help us find better words and ways to use them in describing these things. Then we can avoid wasting time in all these silly semantic debates. Instead of the "incubator" call it a "fraternity initiation rite". Instead of a "meritocracy", call it a "mutual admiration club". ... People who did inferior work overseeing or managing the people who did the better work, does not, prima facie, correspond to the basic logic and structure of what anybody would call a meritocracy. "Anybody" is a bit strong given our conversation above, but I see nothing else inaccurate in this paragraph. In fact, I would go further and say that those do not even correspond upon second or third examination either. I don't know what you're saying here. Really, when people accuse one of not understanding the "Apache Way", it may be a kind of compliment. Frankly, I would be automatically quite suspicious of anybody who asserts that they really understand all this stuff. Now, okay, the projects that want to get branded as Apache projects, the people involved have to demonstrate that they "get" this Apache Way, but that's more like having to agree with some lunatics because it's the easier path. "Yeah, I get it, I really dig the Apache Way. Cripes, I don't know how we actually developed all this code we developed outside ASF when we didn't even have the Apache Way, though somehow we did. But now I see the error of our ways. Yessah, I see the light." "Praise be the Lawd! Hallelujah!" Are you saying that people who like the Apache way of doing things are all crazy zealots about it and believe that none of this code would have developed without it? No, I didn't say that. What I was saying was that, when projects in the so-called incubator are supposed to "get" the "Apache Way", the people involved just say what they think
Re: [VOTE] Accept and Graduate WebWork 2 Podling to Struts
Jason Carreira wrote: +1 I wonder... has anybody in the history of this whole "incubator" thing who was getting "incubated" ever vote against being "graduated"? As in: "Hey, I wanna stay in here longer... it's nice and warm..." or... "I don't think I quite get the Apache Way yet. I need to get incubated some more..." Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ - Posted via Jive Forums http://forums.opensymphony.com/thread.jspa?threadID=28608&messageID=55540#55540 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Accept and Graduate WebWork 2 Podling to Struts
Frank W. Zammetti wrote: Question: looking at the status page, I don't seem to find any mention of some of the licensing issues that were being discussed a while back... IIRC, there was some concern about a calendar widget for example, among other things. Am I just missing it on the page? Or have they not been resolved? Am I correct in thinking that would keep it from graduating? I give a qualifed and of course non-binding +0, contingent on those issues having been resolved (not sure I could give it a +1, based on the definition of +1 given in this case, but I'm in favor of this happening, that's the pertinent sentiment I think). Well, really, how long these people should stay in the incubator boils down a question of taste, doesn't it? Do you like your committers rare, medium, or well done? Jonathan Frank - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dear trolls...
Frank W. Zammetti wrote: On 4/27/06, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear trolls, Please go. Or at least try to form your rambling in to some sort of actionable suggestion. But don't just bitch for the sake of knowing that people are reading, because... Dear everyone else, Please stop reading or replying to the trolls. Seriously. You guys are just as bad for feeding the trolls. Ignoring them is the fastest way to make them go away. I have not and will not entertain them with any sort of response. I suggest you do the same. I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one thought that crossed my mind as I read it: one person's troll is another's crusader. Yes, actually, this point has come up enough that it is the very first thing mentioned in subsection on usage of the term in the wikipedia entry on "Internet Trolls". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Trolls#Usage "The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem" The term "ad hominem" is hyperlinked. Specifically, the usage part is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Usage and that is: "An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself" In other words, an extremely commonplace use of the term "troll" in internet forums (the very first usage mentioned in the wikipedia article on trolls) is as part of an ad hominem fallacy. "Don't talk to that guy, he's a troll" when the person is saying things that challenge a given orthodoxy or hierarchy. This does seem to be what is happening here. I'm sure the King of England viewed the first Continental Congress as a bunch of trolls before the revolution happened :) Well, he would have had some other pejorative term(s) for them. But in general, your point is well taken: people with strong opinions who expound a consistent set of views in good faith are not trolls. That's not what the term means. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ I would hope everyone around here is mature and professional enough to withstand criticism and not reject out-of-hand those ideas that do not immediately jive with your own. You *always* have the choice whether to read someone's posts or not. You *always* have the choice whether to reply or not. Filters are easy to set up, or it only takes a fraction of a second to delete someones' posts (or an entire thread if it doesn't interest you). There are many times where I simply ignore some topic, or some person, when I don't wish to be bothered. But I *never* want to be in a situation where someone can't say what they want freely. That would be far, far worse than any "troll" ever could be IMO. Frank (P.S., while I have your attention Patrick, thanks for Webwork in Action! Excellent introduction to WW!) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dear trolls...
Paul Speed wrote: Frank W. Zammetti wrote: On 4/27/06, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear trolls, Please go. Or at least try to form your rambling in to some sort of actionable suggestion. But don't just bitch for the sake of knowing that people are reading, because... Dear everyone else, Please stop reading or replying to the trolls. Seriously. You guys are just as bad for feeding the trolls. Ignoring them is the fastest way to make them go away. I have not and will not entertain them with any sort of response. I suggest you do the same. I wouldn't have a problem with this except for one thought that crossed my mind as I read it: one person's troll is another's crusader. I'm sure the King of England viewed the first Continental Congress as a bunch of trolls before the revolution happened :) I would hope everyone around here is mature and professional enough to withstand criticism and not reject out-of-hand those ideas that do not immediately jive with your own. You *always* have the choice whether to read someone's posts or not. You *always* have the choice whether to reply or not. Filters are easy to set up, or it only takes a fraction of a second to delete someones' posts (or an entire thread if it doesn't interest you). There are many times where I simply ignore some topic, or some person, when I don't wish to be bothered. But I *never* want to be in a situation where someone can't say what they want freely. That would be far, far worse than any "troll" ever could be IMO. Of course, there is a difference between polite discourse and trolling. I think we all know who the real trolls are and I think the term has been leveled a little heavy-handed lately. I think the bottom line is that if someone doesn't use the product, doesn't like the product, doesn't like any of the people who work on the product, frequently finds themselves always disagreeing with everyone else on the list then maybe it is time for them to find another place to argue. Well, I think the above begs the question. In terms of certain comments I have made, and questions I have posed, look, we all know that *only* an outsider to this project would ever say those things. This is particularly true in situations where the insiders are largely chosen on the basis of them being people who won't rock the boat. So, I mean to say, that if an insider won't say certain things (because they just won't) and an outsider is not supposed to say certain things (because it's somehow improper) you're basically saying that *nobody* should say certain things. IOW, nobody should make certain pointed comments or ask certain hard questions. BUT... if the questions and comments are legitimate, it seems that they should not be off-limits, they should be asked. By somebody Now, OTOH, if your position is that certain comments or questions are illegitimate, you should be able to explain why. But that should be independent of who is making the comment or asking the question... Also, you bring up a good point because those of us who have a person filtered into dev/null don't even have to read the messages unless somebody responds. So stop responding! :) As mentioned earlier, I've been reading these lists for six or seven years or something and always enjoyed the high signal to noise ratio. Well, it is fairly clear to me that the culture you describe so nostalgically has not been good at maintaining any forward technical progress. Maybe, just maybe, this is because a culture where people all nicely agree with one another is inherently kind of sterile, and nothing new or innovative tends to emerge from such an environment. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ Lately it's been ridiculous. -Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dear trolls...
1.x users whether they were in favor of abandoning further development on Struts 1.x? I can't help but think that if you actually asked them, most would answer in the negative. Surely, they would, because, how can they lose? If Frank Z. and other collaborators develop an enhanced version of Struts 1.x, they could still stick to whatever version they were using, right? The presence of more development on 1.x is, in the absolutely worst case, a +0 for them. It it's not an itch, then it must not be important to anyone. I think that conclusion is quite faulty. One thing that I have concluded is that there are a significant number of people who want Struts 1.x development to be carried on. Some of those people are even quite willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work. In terms of basic open source ideals as I have come to understand them, there is simply no justification for preventing people like Frank Z. or possibly Phil Zoio and others from carrying on work on Struts (I mean, the 1.x codebase) if none of the insiders are interested in doing so. Again, getting back to this whole idea you mention that anybody with an "itch" could fork off a separate version, well under what circumstances does this usually occur in the open source world? If someone who wants to work on the FreeMarker codebase, for example, has very very different ideas about how the product should evolve from me and the other project admins, it might be necessary for them to fork off a separate version in order to work on those ideas. However, I think that assumes that the insiders also have plans to carry on development of the product. If the current insiders have no plans to do anything, and somembody else wants to come in and do something, why should the outsiders have to fork off a separate version? If we have lost interest in doing anything, why should we hang around and be obstructionist? We might as well just pass on the flame to the people who want to do something. In my considered view, that is how open source projects *should* work. The problem in this Struts case is that the "Apache effect" I mentioned above. I referred to this overvaluing of the Apache brand as a kind of market bubble that has developed. A characteristic of a market bubble is that it creates certain perverse incentives. (Just look at some of the nuttiness that occurred in the dot-com boom as an example.) And this leads to strange things: in this case, people who don't want to continue work on Struts won't pass the flame to the people who want to continue working on it. So they redefine the stuff they want to work on (Webwork, Shale, whatever...) as being Struts. And a supremely perverse aspect of this is that the people who want to continue development on Struts (when the insiders don't) are being told to go "fork off" a non-canonical version. This branch of the discussion, where we were talking about meritocracy, this was because ASF is supposedly based on the idea that open source projects are a meritocracy. The people with more "merit" run the show. And this is a real problem, when these people start talking about the so-called "Apache Way". The Apache Way is a rather nebulous thing, mind you, but one thing it is clearly supposed to be is a meritocracy. When their stewardship of the project over the last several years has had such dismal technical results, surely some of the logic of meritocracy should kick in and they should have to step aside and let people with some gumption to move things forward have their crack. When people retain their position and power based on incumbency, independently of how poor their performance has been, you obviously don't have a meritocracy. And the logic of this is actually inescapable, it seems. If you don't have a meritocracy, you're not following the Apache Way. Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ hth, .V Dakota Jack wrote: What is amazing to me is that the people who are called "trolls" are only those in some way contrary to the status quo. Others in favor of the status quo who do nothing but use invective and display 10 year old conduct are never mentioned. They are used by the powers that be to attack without any point dissidents. This is really an open source Gulag Apache. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [action][Proposal] Architecture plan for Struts Action 2.0
Ted Husted wrote: On 5/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The current versioning/naming system will force them, because it does not make distinction between Classic and WebWork. Most users and/or their managers know that higher version number means newer and better product. Which is why I preferred "Classic" name for 1.x codebase. I think that before 2.0 and 1.3 are released, it is still possible to reconsider the names. That is, if 1.3 is still considered worth working on. Evidentally, Don, Wendy, Martin, James, and I all feel that 1.3 is a worthwhile endeavor, since we all voted to support the Struts Action 1.3.2 beta release. A lot of work went into 1.3.x, and much of it happened long after 2.0 was announced. I have a couple of comments to make about this. First of all, presumably the whole motivation of this "merger" is that you could unite your energies on a common framework. If there is still ongoing work on 2 different frameworks, it kind of belies the whole point of the merger, doesn't it? Now, my understanding of the point that Michael Jouravlev was making is that, once you label something as version n+1 of something, you are basically putting out the message that version n is superseded. Typically, verseion n+1 of a product supersedes version n. I may be an excessively simple-minded guy, but if I hit a website and can download FooBar version 1, or FooBar version 2, I guess I'll go with version 2. I will also just assume that all new development is on version 2, not version 1. What would a casual observer make of this? You "merge" with a competing framework in order to combine your efforts (i.e. not disperse your efforts on 2 different products as before) and you label Webwork as Struts Action 2 when the existing product is version 1. I put it to you that, on the basis of this, nobody with common sense would count on any further development of Struts 1.x taking place. People will just naturally draw the conclusion that Struts 1.x development is being abandoned. If it was not your intent for people to think that, then you chose a very strange product naming strategy. Now, even if, contrary to all outward appearances, this conclusion is wrong, and you guys really do intend to further develop Struts 1.x, how much credibility do you have on this as things stand? Throughout most of the past 4 years, Struts 1.x was the only thing called Struts and was presumably the only real focus of development of Struts committers. However, development stagnated. To tell people that there is going to be any significant development on that codebase now, when it is competing for attention with another codebase (labelled version 2 of same (!)) is asking people to believe quite a bit. But in any case, if whatever project management practices that were followed over the last few years continue to be followed without considering any changes at all, why should a rational person expect results any different than what there has been over the past few years? This would be a valid question IMO even if there was no merger with Webwork and no Shale. If you continue with the exact same approach, which has yielded rather poor results, and besides that, you don't bring in new people to work on Struts 1.x, why should one expect anything much to come out of it? My sense of things is that you should either just forthrightly tell people that Struts 1.x development is being abandoned. Or, if it isn't, you should immediately offer to bring in people who are interested in working on it. Obviously Frank Zammetti is interested. I suspect that Phil Zoio would be interested. Probably other people too. But as things are, the contradictory message you are emitting just seems outrageous. To prevent people who are able and willing to work on Struts 1.x from getting actively involved, and all the while emit confused messages claiming that Struts 1.x is not really being abandoned, surely this is a bit much for even people around here to swallow, isn't it? Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What's the goal of SAF 2.0? (was Public API first draft )
Ted Husted wrote: On 5/6/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please don't judge until we are done. Silence can be taken to imply consent, and if people with questions don't speak up now, then other people might be disappointed later, when a binding veto lands on the table. We need to first agree on our design goals, then we can pick through implementations. The proposal is about agreeing to the laid out design goals, but it is too early to say that we are or aren't meeting them. First cuts are never put into production as is, and this API is no different. Besides, even if we did finally go with something more sweeping, to make it acceptable under the original agreed upon proposal, we'd have to ensure existing apps would be able to migrate in hours so you can be sure the end user will have a smooth migration. Otherwise, we'd have to move the API to a new version. +1 Under the original proposal, the community agreed that the goal is for Action 2.0 to be a smooth *transition* for WebWork developers and as smooth a migration as we can make it for Action 1 developers. Of course, we all want to continue to improve the framework, and under the original proposal we agreed that more ambitious improvements are to take place in a second phase, which may be a 2.1 or 3.0 series. It's healthy to have these discussions, but we do not want to create unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished in the SAF 2.0 timeframe. What we need here is cooperation and a willingness to compromise and follow a common path that may not be exactly what everyone wants, but it is what the community agreed is best for the project and its users. True, and the community has already agreed that Action 2.0 will be a transitional release. If we agree that some or all of the proposed API changes are transitional, and if someone actually comes up with a patch, and if we accept the patch, then fine. But there is no shortages of *ifs* in that statement. We do *not* want to give people the impression that by having these discussions, we have decided to change course and revoke the original agreement. My guess is you will always think a new API goes too far, Bob will think it doesn't go far enough, and the rest of the developers will lie along that spectrum. We could either fight every step of the way to force our point of view, or we could work together to find a common vision. I think we owe it to our users to do the latter. Hmmm, I can't think of a *user* to whom we owe more than Jason -- or Patrick -- or Toby -- or Rainer -- or anyone else who not only *uses* the framework but also makes concrete contributions to the code and documentation. We all are users. The people mentioned above surely do use Webwork. However, they are not regular users in the sense of this discussion. When you know something and its internal logic and so on as well as these people do, things that are unintuitive and confusing to regular end &users may come naturally to you. There is a real hazard in this, I think. In some recent private correspondence, somebody commented to me that a lot of ASF projects seemed to be "developer-centric", rather than "user-centric" and that this had some very negative consequences in practice. Well, is this dichotomy between a "developer-centric" and "user-centric" really a legitimate difference of viewpoint? It seems to me that any software development project should be user-centric. Similarly, a book writing project should be reader-centric and the development of a consumer device should be consumer-centric. It is my considered opinion that, without that kind of relentless focus on what is useable by and helpful to other people, a project is at extreme risk of degrading into some kind of exercise in intellectual masturbation. In any case, I (unlike some people ;-)) do not presume to know everything there is to know about open source software development. However, I have certain basic beliefs about this and some experience to know whereof I speak. On the basis of this, my sincere advice is that, if you want to do something that's useful, focus on convenience for the broad user base, not your own convenience. Regards, Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [action][Proposal] Architecture plan for Struts Action 2.0
Jason Carreira wrote: I have a couple of comments to make about this. First of all, presumably the whole motivation of this "merger" is that you could unite your energies on a common framework. If there is still ongoing work on 2 different frameworks, it kind of belies the whole point of the merger, doesn't it? Now, my understanding of the point that Michael Jouravlev was making is that, once you label something as version n+1 of something, you are basically putting out the message that version n is superseded. Typically, verseion n+1 of a product supersedes version n. I may be an excessively simple-minded guy, but if I hit a website and can download FooBar version 1, or FooBar version 2, I guess I'll go with version 2. I will also just assume that all new development is on version 2, not version 1. What would a casual observer make of this? You "merge" with a competing framework in order to combine your efforts (i.e. not disperse your efforts on 2 different products as before) and you label Webwork as Struts Action 2 when the existing product is version 1. I put it to you that, on the basis of this, nobody with common sense would count on any further development of Struts 1.x taking place. People will just naturally draw the conclusion that Struts 1.x development is being abandoned. If it was not your intent for people to think that, then you chose a very strange product naming strategy. Now, even if, contrary to all outward appearances, this conclusion is wrong, and you guys really do intend to further develop Struts 1.x, how much credibility do you have on this as things stand? Throughout most of the past 4 years, Struts 1.x was the only thing called Struts and was presumably the only real focus of development of Struts committers. However, development stagnated. To tell people that there is going to be any significant development on that codebase now, when it is competing for attention with another codebase (labelled version 2 of same (!)) is asking people to believe quite a bit. But in any case, if whatever project management practices that were followed over the last few years continue to be followed without considering any changes at all, why should a rational person expect results any different than what there has been over the past few years? This would be a valid question IMO even if there was no merger with Webwork and no Shale. If you continue with the exact same approach, which has yielded rather poor results, and besides that, you don't bring in new people to work on Struts 1.x, why should one expect anything much to come out of it? My sense of things is that you should either just forthrightly tell people that Struts 1.x development is being abandoned. Or, if it isn't, you should immediately offer to bring in people who are interested in working on it. Obviously Frank Zammetti is interested. I suspect that Phil Zoio would be interested. Probably other people too. But as things are, the contradictory message you are emitting just seems outrageous. To prevent people who are able and willing to work on Struts 1.x from getting actively involved, and all the while emit confused messages claiming that Struts 1.x is not really being abandoned, surely this is a bit much for even people around here to swallow, isn't it? Jonathan Revusky -- lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ This is exactly like the split we had a few years ago > when Patrick and I decided to start from scratch with > WebWork 2. Jason, I think to say "exactly like" is really pushing things. I shall point out two very fundamental differences between the two situations: The first is that when you and Patrick decided to start a Webwork 2 -- with, I presume, a new architecture and so on -- this was a situation where you were the ones willing to roll up your sleeves and do the heavy lifting and make things happen. SAF2 involves the existing Struts commmitters, who failed to maintain any development momentum on their product, relabelling *your* work on WW as the next version of Struts. That's kinda different, isn't it? Now, I don't know the situation in any detail that you are describing with Webwork (you have the advantage on me there) but I would say that, sure, there may well have been people in the WW community with reservations about the direction that you and Patrick were taking things with WW 2. BUT... the fact remains that you were the ones willing to do the heavy lifting, and, in a sensibly structured environment, the people willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work are the ones who determine the future direction of a project. (They could well be taking the project in the wrong direction, but they're the ones who are willing to do the work, so they make the decisions. It really can't work any other way IMO.) The other significa
