Gerald, did you read this citation? Here is what it says, among other things.
All MVC frameworks basically operate within the same 5 phases: 1. *Decode* Interpreting state/parameters passed from the client 2. *Validate* This involves validating the information decoded and possibly authorization/authentication 3. *Update* Once the submitted information is validated, update the Java model 4. *Invoke* Some controller behavior is handled here, such as an action once state is applied from the update phase. 5. *Encode* Rendering the result of the action invocation and model state back to the client This is so wrong. Do you really think that the first thing that is done is to decode state/parameters when you have a .do? If so, you don't even know how Struts works. On 3/17/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Michael, > > You have really got to learn to read. Anyway, here's another idea > that'll put you in a tizzy > http://weblogs.java.net/blog/jhook/archive/2006/03/the_new_servlet_1.html > > Steve > > Dakota Jack wrote: > > Good god, Steve. You think that the very idea that a JSF > > implementation could become Struts 2.0 is not a huge proof that > > everything you just said is not goofy? Maybe we could suggest that > > Java become C? > > > > On 3/17/06, Steve Raeburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > >> > >>> I was *going* to say that the difference is that when the project > >>> started it was me and me alone, and that isn't the case any more. > >>> There are two other committers, and we have project bylaws that > >>> effectively gives them the ability to do things even if I 100% > >>> disagree. I started out with complete control, and right now I > >>> essentially have none, and I must follow the will of the leadership. > >>> Ultimately, we are accountable to the community insofar as if we do a > >>> bad job, there will be *no* community :) > >>> > >> And that's *exactly* how the Struts project works. It was started by > one > >> person, then a few more joined and now they collectively make > decisions. > >> Even if the founder of the project disagrees. > >> > >> Some people seem to look at Shale being part of the Struts project as a > >> sign that one person controls the project and always gets his own way. > >> In fact, that is the complete opposite of the truth. That Shale is now > a > >> Struts sub-project was a result of a disagreement between committers > >> over the future of Struts and what should become Struts 2.0. IMHO that > >> disagreement was handled in a very mature, thoughtful way which > resulted > >> in Shale becoming a subproject and a peer to Struts Action, rather than > >> replacing it. The jury's still out on which will become more widely > >> used, but that's not really the point. Both can happily co-exist here > >> and one does not have to fail for the other to succeed. > >> > >> So, there *is* healthy disagreement, non-committers *are* listened to > >> during the discussion and then a decision is made and we move on. > >> Sometimes ;-) > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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~ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
