On 12/1/05, Preston CRAWFORD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/1/2005 7:30:16 PM >>> > My personal belief is that component oriented development is more > accessible > to a wider array of developers than action oriented frameworks. > Therefore, > I spend my time (disclaimer: I'm paid to do this too, but that > doesn't > cover much of my open source effort :-) working on technologies that > are > designed to increase the overall number of developers in the world that > are > using Java based technologies. Does that mean JSF is "better" than > action > ************************************************************** > > I would agree sincerely with the above. And if that is the overall > intent of why Struts is moving in the direction it is then to some > extent I get it. I mean, on one level I don't get it. That being that if > JSF already exists, why not just improve JSF instead of creating JSF++? > I don't necessarily see the benefit in that sense. It might make more > sense to keep a good, action oriented framework, pushing it forward and > improving it, and let JSF take its course.
Is there some compelling reason you can think of why Struts, as an open source project, cannot address *both* universes of users? After all (as Ted says) we are not constrained by the typical economics of closed source software development. WIthin the Struts community, there seem to be developers willing to work on both kinds of frameworks -- and that's just as legitimate (at the project level) as having Java and C and PERL and Python projects at the Apache Software Foundation level. There is more than one "right" answer. That is, unless you believe that action oriented frameworks are > inaccessible enough to newbies, that in terms of sheer productivity it > doesn't make sense to push that model forward. I can see that point of > view. I think what many of us are seeking either way, is a clarification > on where Struts is headed and why so we can make an informed decision. > Right now backwards compatibility is being stressed so much (and I > understand why, but bear with me) that it's possible that those making > decisions won't really know what Struts is about at a certain point and > will choose something more rigid like Tapestry or JSF. Or, like I said > in another email, start taking a look at something like Ruby on Rails. I > don't know. I just know that Struts has been a standard-bearer for some > time. And change isn't bad, as long as you know where that change is > headed. Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing > list. A *huge* number of newbies (to the Java platform) came in via Struts. A significant percentage of them found it more difficult that they would have liked, and more than I would like fell off the bandwagon and gave up. There's plenty of room for making action frameworks more accessible -- but the quality of "accessibility" can not be persisted in a boolean variable :-). Something more robust and visible might not be a bad idea. Because I > can speak from experience (having had to justify Struts 3 years ago when > I was working at a company choosing a framework, and again this year > when an organization I was with was testing out Tapestry) that Struts is > the standard, by and large. Confusing the powers that be, or making it > hard for people like myself to explain even what Struts is and why we > should choose it, is going to make life more difficult and perhaps have > people turning elsewhere. <ducks> Well, if you really want to live in a world where there is one and only one choice, ASP.Net beckons :-) </ducks> Actually, that's not even true either ... if you peruse the Struts sandbox, you'll find a couple of packages called Agility and Nexus which, together, provide a C# based front controller framework that looks a *lot* like Struts 1.3 looks to Java developers. Preston Craig
