.V
V. Cekvenich wrote:
My Comments IN-LINE CAPS:
* Struts is not very powerful. There's no action chaining; all of the models are one layer deep.
STRUTS IS LIGHT WEIGHT, FAST AND EASY. AND LIKE HE SAID ON TOP, VERY POPULAR.
* Struts is bound to the web. You can't use it outside of the context of a servlet engine. Model-View-Controller is a very generic paradigm; don't you think implementations should follow the paradigm?
SO? WHAT?
* Struts has poor configuration. Struts is bound to the web, so you'd think that Least Astonishment would allow you to use web semantics, but the config file does things to hide that from you.
IT IS A WEB FRAMEWORK, KISS.
CONSIDER A SUBMARINE THAT IS ALSO A LAWN MOWER. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT DOES 2 THINGS?
* Struts tries to do everything for you: UI, logic, templating, MVC. In other words, it's not a toolkit, it's a platform.
I WISH STRUTS DID DO EVERYTHING. IT IS ONLY AN ACTION CONTROLLER.
* Struts dictates the view to you: you pretty much have to use JSP in order to use Struts. I suppose the mindset is that if you're going to be bound to the web, why not bind yourself as much as you can?
TED'S BOOK ADVOCATES VELOCITY, A BIG DEAL IS STXX (XML).
Matt Raible wrote:
Any of you care to comment on this? http://java.enigmastation.com/Q806I'll post a rebuttle on my weblog shortly.
I SAY JUST IGNORE HIM, WHO CARE TO ENLIGHTEN HIM. UNLESS YOU SAY "WHICH ONE DOES HE FAVOR?"
Matt
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
