Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:31:28 -0500, Alex Kravets wrote: > Ted, > > I hope you don't think that we (well me at least) seem to be > accusation in our e-mails. That is not the case. I am just sharing > my thoughts on where this or that approach might lead in the > future. It might sound unappreciative

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Ted, I hope you don't think that we (well me at least) seem to be accusation in our e-mails. That is not the case. I am just sharing my thoughts on where this or that approach might lead in the future. It might sound unappreciative when guys spend thousands of hours perfecting/making better som

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

I don't think anyone is out to prove or disprove anything. Craig saw a cool way to implement a front controller for JavaServer Faces, so he posted some proof-of-concept code. Other people starting making contributions. A community is growing up around the codebase, so we made it a subproject. T

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

True. Choice is good. The whole notion of capitalism is based on this. Choice is a product of competition, and when there is competition better products come out as a result of competition between number of other products. Indeed choice is good. Woodchuck wrote: hihi all, just want to add my 2

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

hihi all, just want to add my 2 cents i think it's simply a time issue. if i had time, naturally i'd like to evaluate all possible choices before deciding which framework to use. but given the amount of framework spin-offs we have these days, it's a luxury not many ppl will have. think about a

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

I guess it depends on which group of 700 people you ask, and also how you ask the question: http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2004/05/19/2004-survey.html "What are you using?" (the question asked by OnJava, and is what market share would be based on) is different from "What is the best?" (asked b

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Alex Kravets wrote: Well I think 70% is a little bit too much http://www.manageability.org/polls/what-is-the-best-java-web-framework Yup, agree. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=98268169919293&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=97660305929382&w=2 Here are some other St

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

This should have been a quote: Accroding to latest "market share" reportring (by Raible) Struts is like 70% of market share. (Having said that, I wish that people that use Struts becuase it's popular go away, one should use own judgment; if everyone used EJB, would you use that too? or woul

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Well I think 70% is a little bit too much http://www.manageability.org/polls/what-is-the-best-java-web-framework Accroding to latest "market share" reportring (by Raible) Struts is like 70% of market share. (Having said that, I wish that people that use Struts becuase it's popular go awa

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

I know you asked Ted/Craig but Tapestry is a Apache project, like Struts, a good framework that is View centric, home page says: " Tapestry is an alternative to scripting environments such as JavaServer Pages or Velocity" Accroding to latest "market share" reportring (by Raible) Struts is like

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Ted, Graig, So was Struts Shale made to make programmer's life easier in creating Web Applications using MVC Framework? I've read some posts/blogs where people who've used Struts and now use Tapestry say that they will never go back to Struts again. Is this what Struts Shale tries to change/disp

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:12:49 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any comments, Craig? I know it's a bit flamy, but would be interested in > your perspective. > Shale actually follows Rod's advice about not mixing metaphors -- that's why it is NOT mixed in with Struts 1.x's r

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:04:16 -0800, Dakota Jack wrote: > > Please don't respond to this email by saying that those who do can > do anything they like.  They can, of course, but that does not mean > it makes much sense except for marketing purposes for JSF.  (I > personally think that this will just

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

| | cc: | | Subject: Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?] | >--

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: "Vic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?] It says bellow that ... DHay at

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

It says bellow that ... DHay at LexMark has signature of Dakota Jack if I read it right in the post. (The 2 of them care then). Also known as "Michael McGrady " on the server side as Dakota Jack. Any more ? If so, why? Ah.. you may

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

To: Struts Users Mailing List | | cc: | | Subject: Re: Struts 2.0

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

Got it! Don't worry, we learn quickly. .V Dakota Jack wrote: Please don't respond to this email .. -- Forums, Boards, Blogs and News in RiA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional co

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 06:50:13 -0500, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Meanwhile, another potentially great framework has come along: Shale. Like > Struts, Shale is MVC web framework, but it doesn't share any code or > architectural hallmarks with Struts 1.x. As Rod Johnson (the brrains b

Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:03:09 -0500, Alex Kravets wrote: > So what do you guys think? > http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=31509 An important clarification we'll make to the FAQ is that "by doing our job right" we mean "not break backward compatibility" in the ongoing 1.x serie