On 3/23/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Jouravlev wrote:
> In the above you say you will "try again" to explain this. I have no > recollection that you ever tried to explain it to me before. It was in the other longer thread :) > > Core Struts people are moving to JSF/Shale, leaving the original > > Struts Classic niche up for grabs. > > Well, this means that nobody wants to work on the Struts 1.x codebase. > Why? I presume because it's considered to be technically obsolete. > > Why is the Struts 1.x codebase technically obsolete? Is GM's 3.8L pushrod technically obsolete? It is still used by GM and is loved by many. Do you remember Oldsmobile Intrigue, introduced in 1997, I think. It had 3800 pushrod first, then in about two years the engine was replaced with new shiny 3.5L 24-valve Shortstar. Where is Oldsmobile now? Where is Shortstar now? (hint: both discontinued). I do not defent Struts 1.x codebase, I just say that technical pros and cons sometimes matter less than cost to produce, cost to maintain and availability of repair shops. Oldsmobile clientelle was not ready for complex and expensive high-rpm DOHC engine. > One problem is that the whole thing seems to have intent to deceive > behind it. A casual observer will believe that Struts Action 2 is the > continuation of the Struts 1.x codebase and the work of the Struts > community. It is not. It is a codebase that was a competing product, > developed by a different community. Casual observers want software for free. > > Six years, are you kidding? After all, they > > work on a new product now, so it will be beneficial for the community > > too. WebWork guys get the recognition, the market and the influence. > > Struts Action users get new version of the framework. Who cares that > > it was called WebWork before? > > Well, what you're saying, Michael is basically: "Yeah, isn't this great > marketing?" Yeah, isn't it? I think it is. It's now or never. Because when people start to move to Java5 massively, they will look at simpler alternatives that use annotations and other new stuff. I still use JDK1.4, so these alternatives are not for me. > Maybe it is, but you're talking like a marketing guy, not an engineer. Maybe I should move forward then, to big-window office away from my cubicle :) > The intent behind this is to mislead people. Nah. The intent is to break away, keeping/repairing the good image of Struts and of what is related to Struts. > I see intent to deceive. And that does not set well with me. As long as you keep it for yourself to muse about, that's ok. Keep the pitchfork in the barn ;) Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
