<NOT speaking for IBM> summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major publication*
* that JSF does/will not "replace Struts" * how JSF and Struts will likely tend to specialize, in future * how probable specializations will complement (and compete) in webapp development I.e. pretty much what he has already said in this list, but much more visibly. details: Craig R. McClanahan Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:57:04 -0800 (rearranged) > There is going to be tremendous support for JSF in the industry; > fortunately, we can continue to maintain and enhance Struts without > having to give that up (thanks to the integration library). Instead, > we can embrace it The problem, as I see it, is how to make the industry understand that JSF will also embrace Struts? (and not in the sense of "embrace and extend" :-) More below, esp re SFIL. > My personal vision is that Struts developers will focus their energy > on the controller and model tiers, leveraging the existence of > standard (and not) technologies in the view tier. Personally I agree strongly, and FWIW have advocated something very similar (i.e. JSF both for view AND as a "M$-killer" for Model1 apps) in local fora, e.g. http://ns.cnconsulting.com/pipermail/juglist_trijug.org/2003q4/001106.html ISTMT this also would also make a lotta sense for JSF, since (again, it seems to _me_--my bosses may disagree) * no one framework is ever gonna do all of Java MVC web application development/execution the way that most IT folks want to do it (since "most folks" can never agree on much of anything specific :-) * no one framework is ever gonna have all the resources/mindshare to do all of Java MVC web application development/execution "right" (presuming "right" could be agreed on), therefore specialization makes sense * MVC is a natural partition for such specialization Unfortunately * The JSF community seems to be putting out a competing message, not a complementary one: "JSF will replace Struts," or even "JSF is a better Struts." � E.g. Geary said, flat out (not only is it in my notes, I believe it was verbatim in a slide), "Is JSF a replacement for Struts? Yes!" I challenged him, saying that while JSF 1.0 (with Tiles) can do pretty much everything Struts 1.1 can, Struts 2.0 seemed to be focused on doing things (e.g. struts-chain) that did not seem to be in the JSF plan. At which point he backed off, but continued to suggest that JSF should be favored for new-project development. (To his credit, Geary also made clear that "JSF and Tiles is a sweet combination.") � One also hears that JCP is "more standard" than the Apache process, thus a more better target for development orgs. (Typically the Apache process is also deprecated by association with the unfortunate Struts 1.0--1.1 delays.) A popular variation asserts that JSF will eventually become part of the J2EE spec, while Struts never will. * The "JSF replaces Struts" line has traction. I have heard it from consultants (and not just Geary), ISVs, and from ... highly-placed persons who I believe should know better :-( * The "JSF replaces Struts" line has practical impact (which demands a substantial, visible response--more on that farther below) � Development organizations have limited budgets. Managers of development orgs always want to "pick _the_ winner" (not just "a winner") if they can. There are of course a lotta webapps still to be written, and still a LOT of Model1 and "Model1.5" webapps out there, many of which folks wanna make more MVC. I suspect managers of their development groups will be most receptive to the "JSF (and not Struts) for new project development" line. � Java tool developers face an esp crowded field of Java MVC web apps. We are gonna _hafta_ tool JSF, and we want to--it's nicely designed, and we wanna target the {Model1, "departmental developer", SMB, ASP.NET} space. But when managers of Java tool developers hear that "JSF will bury Struts," and hear about their budgets, they are gonna wanna say things like, "going forward we expect to actively tool JSF and to sunset Struts." Note that while I expect tool adoption/quality to be crucial for JSF (which very much seems "built to tool"), I do not consider it quite so important for Struts. That being said, good tools help, and I am very proud of my group's Struts tools, such as our web diagram editor. (FWIW I expect to be equally proud of our JSF tools in the very near future, and to continue to improve and extend our Struts support.) So ... what to do about this? For starters, "we" can advocate that * JSF is NOT gonna make Struts obsolete * JSF AND Struts {is, will be} a sweet combination but unfortunately I suspect that will not be enough: something's gotta come "from the top," by which I mean (not entirely in jest) McClanahan. Steve Raeburn Sat, 20 Mar 2004 11:40:45 -0800 (rearranged) >> As the creator of Struts and spec lead for JSF, I think Craig is in >> a unique position to understand where all this is going. I take the >> fact that he has accepted the role of Chair of the newly formed >> Apache Struts PMC as a sign that he believes Struts has a strong >> future and that he's willing to help its continuing evolution and >> growth. True that ... >> Craig has previously stated that there is still a role for Struts >> to play. ... and that--note however that he has done so (IIRC) "in the Struts space," e.g. this list. Where I slightly disagree with Raeburn is his claim that McClanahan has adequately spoken with, to paraphrase, "deeds, not words": >> He has demonstrated by developing a means to integrate the two and >> making it available in the Struts distribution. See Struts-Faces in >> the Struts contrib directory. SFIL is unfortunately open to another interpretation, which I hear all too often: that it is not so much an "integration library" as a *migration* one. Unfortunately this interpretation resonates with an allegation I have heard (I suspect I am not alone, but YMMV) far too often from JSF advocates: that McClanahan is at best acceding to, and at worst conniving in, the transition from Struts to JSF. The former position seems to be Geary's. He said <from notes>"Craig has a lot invested in Struts"</from notes>, implying <from memory>that McClanahan is just unwilling to just pull the plug on his Struts involvement</from memory>, which Geary clearly claims to be obsolete (at least, Real Soon Now--he does give props to its stability). The latter position is more troubling, not because I know of any evidence for it, but because I have been hearing it for over a year now. Variations include: * "Craig says one thing in the Struts space, and another thing in the JSF space." Whenever I hear this I ask for a pointer, and have never received one. * "Craig works for Sun, and Sun wants JSF, not Struts." My rejoinder is, then why do they continue to allow/tolerate/support his continued work on/for Struts? Note that such responses are usually met with nothing more than a smug smile. I suppose this is due to, less charitably, * the weakness of the position (their's, of course--not mine !-) * the human desire to believe in the existence, and one's personal possession, of esoteric knowledge (cf the continuing popularity of the Middle Eastern monotheisms) and more charitably * the absence of the opposing view ("JSF + Struts, not JSF > Struts") outside the Struts space esp * the absence of the opposing view in "Faces space" (and, umm, my position "in the food chain," or lack thereof :-) Perhaps I'm missing something, but a (all-too-) quick google and search of http://forum.java.sun.com/forum.jsp?forum=427 (BTW another thing I prefer about Apache projects: the list/archive style) found no prominent statements of the "JSF + Struts" position outside the Struts space, certainly nothing to equal McClanahan's statements on this list. Therefore ISTMT + McClanahan could relatively easily state the "JSF + Struts" position in some major publication, either in the Java space (e.g. JDJ, JavaWorld) or, better yet, outside/above (e.g. eWeek, ComputerWorld). I say "easily" because � IMHO McClanahan is widely respected, not only in both the JSF and Struts communities, but the wider Java community. When he talks (esp on this subject, which IIRC has already generated fair buzz), they will publish :-) � the required verbiage could be easily generated. If an interview, all McClanahan need do is talk; if a more standard sort of article, the point could be relatively easily made by recycling his posts to this list. (To "spike" the "if it's so easy, why don't YOU do it" response, it's because I have too many bugs on my code right now :-) More importantly, who would listen? The whole point of this exercise is VISIBILITY.) and I specify "publication" because � a talk typically doesn't provide something easily {quoted, linked to}, and I believe serialization is important in this matter. (I.e. the next time I hear one of the arguments rebutted above, I wanna be able to say, "go HERE and read THIS" :-) � something that exists in hardcopy, as well as online, is more likely to reach managers (just my guess, YMMV) (though the individual pubs mentioned above are just OTTOMH). + McClanahan should state the "JSF + Struts" position in some major publication. The normative form is IMHO warranted by � his unique and unquestioned position relative to both JSF and Struts � the ease with which the action could be accomplished (as previously asserted) � the practical effect such a statement could have (viz the effects of the "JSF replaces Struts" meme, farther above) </NOT speaking for IBM> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
