On 3/30/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dion Gillard wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > do you have a list of things that are technically wrong with Struts 1.x? > > Dion, there is a Struts/Webwork merger afoot whereby the Webwork > codebase is being donated to ASF to be the basis of the next version of > Struts, Struts Action Framework 2 or whatever.
Yep, already know that. The fact that the Webwork codebase is being used as the basis of the > next version of the framework by the Struts people rather than Struts > itself basically leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the Struts > developers themselves consider Webwork to be better technology. Not necessarily. There may be many reasons. And as I understand it, the 'next version of the framework by the Struts people' could also be considered Apache Struts Shale. Quoting Ted H: "The reason Shale is not Struts 2.x is because there was so much concern about doing things better, that we ended up with no easy way to pour our old wine into the new bottle. Many of us can't afford to recode the many large and mature Struts applications now in production. There has to be a clear and simple way to get there from here." It's also quite possible that it is easier to use Don's work with Struts Ti, and combine WebWork than it is to make the same sorts of changes to Struts 1.x. Why reinvent the wheel? Also, based on your reasoning, the Webwork developers themselves must consider Struts a more widely adopted, better marketed technology, with far more developer acceptance and corporate penetration. As far as the exact technicalities, I can only do what you can do, which > is look in google for discussions about this. A google search on: > > struts webwork comparisons > > yields a lot of hits, but the first result is this one: > > http://wiki.opensymphony.com/display/WW/Comparison+to+Struts > > Obviously, not totally objective, since it is by the WW people, but > probably factual enough. You get various blog entries and you can ask > these people, who surely know a lot more than I do. > > The truth is out there (somewhere). Truth being subjective opinion, yes. "Is WebWork better' technology?" is a subjective question with people on both sides of the fence. What the merger brings us as users is the ability to pick up some of the better features of WebWork without necessarily taking the hit/cost of 'switching'. There's been much talk about bridging SAF1 and 2, and I expect with such a huge install base, this will be a big deal to the Struts developers. I hope that helps. > > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > > > > On 3/30/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Vinny wrote: > >> > >>>There have been many time in history when an individual > >>>catholic _has_ been more catholic than the Pope. > >>>I am simply giving my opinion. > >> > >>Well, that's true, I guess. You've got a point there, Vinny. > >> > >>So, yeah, feel free. Be more catholic than the pope. Keep maintaining > >>that Struts 1.x is great stuff after the Struts developers themselves > >>have abandoned it in favor of Webwork. > >> > >>Jonathan Revusky > >>-- > >>lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>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] > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ > > Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is > afraid > > of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris
