There have been many time in history when an individual catholic _has_ been more catholic than the Pope. I am simply giving my opinion.
On 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vinny wrote: > > I still say that struts 1.x has not "lost" to webwork. > > When I do a quick unscientific search on monster.com for > > "struts" I get over 1000 jobs listed. The same search for "webwork" > > yields 22 jobs. Apparently struts "won" on the business front, > > That's a different question entirely. The question posed up top here in > the subject line is: "Why did Struts development stagnate?" > > Actually, you could append to that question, given this above data -- > "Why did Struts development stagnate -- *despite* having such a huge > user community and so on and so forth.... as documented above...." > > > I don't think that is even debatable. > > Well, I don't either. That's why that is not the subject of the debate. > > > Now if we want to talk about > > technical prowess then maybe Jonathan might have a point. > > It was about technical prowess. "Struts development" -- the fact that > the Struts developers have abandoned the 1.x codebase decided to base > "Struts Action 2" on the Webwork codebase. > > > I can't comment > > on it because like a good little scientist I'd like to do some > > experiments first. > > Well, look, Vinny, if the Struts developers themselves prefer to base > Struts 2 on Webwork, they are saying that Webwork is technically better. > If you want to defend Struts 1.x after that, then you're in the position > of being more catholic than the pope. > > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > To me this seems like a nice merger that benefits both projects. > > The betamax vs VHS , RISC vs CISC, frameworkC vs frameworkD, Bush vs Kerry > > debates are rapidly becoming background noise to me. > > > > On 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Jonathan Revusky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 11:27 PM > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>It still seems broadly on-topic to me. It's certainly a legitimate, > >>>>well-formulated question. > >>>> > >>>>Seriously, the only other possibility I see is struts-dev. If it's > >>>>off-topic on both struts-user and struts-dev, then the question really > >>>>is (as I am starting to suppose) basically taboo. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>The question isn't taboo - I posed the same kind of thing (and offered one > >>>perspective) in an earlier thread: > >>> > >>>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.struts.user/122903 > >>> > >>>However I don't think what I said in that thread was the whole story - > >>>clearly frameworks such as WebWork succeeded and I assume they were a > >>>volunteer effort as well. > >> > >>Yes, the bulk of your explanation there seemed to be that Struts was an > >>all-volunteer effort and so on. > >> > >>This could not possibly be why it fell behind Webwork. > >> > >> > >>>We currently have 22 committers on Struts - > >> > >>Out of curiosity, what is your rough guess as to how many of these 22 > >>people committed any code in the last... year, let's say. > >> > >> > >>>but levels of activity vary > >>>widely and I would say that the type of talented people it takes to drive a > >>>project forward (and I don't include myself in that group) no longer have > >>>an > >>>interest in doing so on the Action 1 side - for various reasons. People > >>>such > >>>as Craig put their effort into developing the JSF standard and see that as > >>>the future for web development and that is where they now concentrate their > >>>effort. Don was doing alot of work inovating with Struts Ti > >> > >>Well, I was not aware of this. However, you mean that Struts TI was a > >>complete rewrite of the framework? I mean, was there a tacit assumption > >>there that Struts 1.x could not be evolved forward and required a > >>complete rewrite? > >> > >> > >>>and had the > >>>offer to merge not come along from WebWork - we would probably be seeing > >>>the > >>>fruits of his efforts as Action2 and not even discussing "stagnation" at > >>>this point. Ted was AWOL doing C# for a while (hes been "back" for a while > >>>which is good :-), Martin seems focused on javascript etc. etc. So I guess > >>>this leads to the next question "Well why didn't we attract new talented > >>>people into the project that would drive Struts forward?" This I don't > >>>know - seems that lots of people decided to go invent their own web > >>>framework (YAWF) rather than get involved with Struts. Some of that is > >>>certainly their own egos being the "founder of a framework" and some of it > >>>I > >>>believe is the compatibility issue - its far easier to write a brand new > >>>shiny web framework when not hampered by backwards compatibility. Whether > >>>we > >>>as a community "put them off" I have no knowledge - but I've never seem > >>>that > >>>proferred anywhere as a reason. It was always something like "Struts sucks > >>>because of x, y and z and my brand new shiny framework does it better". > >>>Course its far easier to invent a new framework by looking at existing ones > >>>and seeing how you can improve them. Back to the "new people" question > >>>though - its not my perspective that we have lots of people knocking at the > >>>door trying to give us contributions and we're turning them away. I believe > >>>its easy to become a Struts committer - you offer reasonable code, are > >>>helpful in the community (e.g. answering questions on the user list), been > >>>around a while and don't start flame wars or attack people personally - > >>>then > >>>you get asked. Theres probably 2/3 people who probably think they should > >>>have been asked, but haven't - they may or may no have a point - but > >>>besides > >>>them I don't see it as a case of Struts excluding people and I don't have > >>>an > >>>explanation for why there are not hoards of people wanting to join. > >> > >>Well, first of all, on the question of people going off and doing their > >>own framework, you have to basically figure that some of these people > >>just didn't think that they could apply their ideas in this setting. If > >>somebody with a fire in their belly and some innovative ideas had showed > >>up here and wanted to work on that, would they have been able to do so? > >> > >>After all, the fact remains that everybody knows that any work they do > >>under the ASF umbrella will get much more attention and usage than it > >>would otherwise. This is the main (probably the only) reason that the > >>Webwork people have come here. So, a priori, your saying that you aren't > >>attracting collaborators is really quite odd, isn't it? > >> > >>The thing is, Niall, that pretty much all the times you get a new > >>collaborator, that person was first a user. Typically that someone is a > >>"power user", and is pushing the limits of what the tool can do, and > >>starts donating code to make the tool more powerful, and next thing you > >>know, the guy is a collaborator. > >> > >>Now, you've got a lot of users, so that this basic mechanism doesn't > >>operate is rather odd. > >> > >>What I have noticed is that the communication with your user community > >>is rather poor. Basically, for all of it, the bulk of your users seem > >>completely clued out as to what is going on with the Webwork merger. > >> > >>For example, you get people flaming me because I am saying that Webwork > >>is better than Struts. They say "stop bashing Struts". But I am saying > >>exactly what the Struts developers are saying! They have accepted that > >>Webwork is better than Struts! So am I supposed to be more catholic than > >>the pope? > >> > >>Also these people assume that I must be a Webwork developer. Somebody > >>wrote a spoof of me in which I was praising Webwork to the skies! I have > >>nothing to do with Webwork. I have never even used it. When I say > >>Webwork is better, I am simply echoing what the Struts PMC are already > >>saying. > >> > >>So, I mean, some of this is just going on because people don't know > >>what's going on. I see a real communications failure. > >> > >>If people really knew that the current Struts 1.x codebase is being > >>abandoned, you would think that there would be a lot more threads on > >>this list about migration issues. "I've got this Struts 1.x App and I > >>just was having a look at Webwork, which is going to be Struts Action 2 > >>and have various questions about how my app can be migrated...." I don't > >>see threads like that, which means to me that you have not communicated > >>to your rank and file users what is really going on here. > >> > >>Now, if there really is a problem in terms of user<->developer > >>communication here, it would explain why the process whereby certain > >>power users become collaborators is not happening as often as it should. > >>And this would be a factor in the stagnation. > >> > >>Certainly, given the size of the user community, even if 1 in 100 people > >>eventually became committers via that process, you would have a lot of > >>active committers. > >> > >>That a community like webwork with far fewer users nonetheless has a > >>more active, real developer team, is really something to look at. > >> > >>Certainly, in earlier discussions, most people just seemed to think that > >>it was really hard to become a commmitters. So if that is a > >>misconception, it is a widely held one. There's something odd going on here. > >> > >> > >>>Another answer to the question is "it hasn't stagnated - > >> > >> > >>Stop, Niall, stop. That's not an answer. :-) Let's not go around > >>completely in circles. > >> > >> > >>>we've moved on to > >>>Shale" and that is the future for existing Struts users. > >> > >>Well, if that is the case, you haven't communicated it to your users. > >> > >>I grant that if you are going to communicate something to your users, > >>you should probably have a consistent message. The Action/Shale > >>cohabitation seems to almost preclude having a consistent message. > >> > >>Anyway, JSF/Shale is just something completely different > >>paradigmatically and the idea of that as "Struts 2" is really quite odd. > >> > >> > >>>Clearly there are > >>>quite a few people that will disagree with this - but also alot that will > >>>say "great I buy JSF as the future and I'm glad the Struts project has an > >>>offering that supports this". > >> > >>Well, unless you are offering migration tools or a compatibility layer > >>or something, how does it benefit your users that Shale is under the > >>"Struts umbrella" any more than if it was a separate project? I mean, > >>it's a paradigmatic shift that you have to get head around either way > >>and existing apps would need to be refactored. > >> > >> > >>>At the end of the day though this does seem academic, - since we now have > >>>two > >>>offering for whatever camp you fall into (component orientated or action > >>>orientated) and from my point of view the really good thing about the > >>>WebWork merger is not only the great software were getting - but also the > >>>talented new blood thats coming into the project. > >> > >>Well, if you accept that the Webwork people just ran the better project, > >>you guys failed to keep Struts 1.x going at least in terms of innovation > >>and development, then by that logic, the current Struts PMC should just > >>step down probably and let the Webwork people run the show. > >> > >>If the same PMC that presided over technical stagnation before is going > >>to remain the managers of the project, then I think it isn't an academic > >>question. You have to examine the mistakes you made before. > >> > >> > >> > >>>So I've given my answer to the question - now can we let this list get back > >>>to helping and answering user questions - which is its main purpose? > >> > >>Niall, I don't know what you're talking about here. I see no sign that > >>the list stopped helping people and answering their questions due to the > >>presence of this thread. > >> > >>You were giving some signs that you now were willing to talk about this. > >>You've had a certain say about this now. You've stepped forward and said > >>the topic is not taboo. Well, now you're saying, let's not talk about it > >>any more, i.e. I broke the taboo temporarily to get this guy off my > >>back, but nudge nudge, wink, wink, the topic really is taboo. > >> > >>Okay, maybe that wasn't your intent, but if not, and the topic isn't > >>taboo, how do you know other people don't have opinions to express now? > >> > >>Again, the idea that this is an either-or proposition and the list has > >>to choose between talking about this and helping people by answering > >>technical questions is actually absurd, isn't it? > >> > >>Jonathan Revusky > >>-- > >>lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > >> > >> > >>>Niall > >> > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
