On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 08:30:17AM +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote: > Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > >Some points that people seem to be forgetting: > >- Xwork is in the SANDBOX and is eXperimental (if you like the X for that) > >- Nothing in Xwork can't be changed, these are ideas, prototypes > >- Xwork will be better for 'web work' than WebWork is! > >- Xwork will be better for 'non web work' than WebWork is, _WITHOUT_ > >impacting people who don't care for 'non web work' > > > That WebWork turned out to be a generic command pattern was more of an > accident then by design. Because of this genericity WebWork is not > optimally designed for doing web work. Some of the "plumbing" needs to > be done by actions themselves, instead of having it be done by the > framework. I want to make WebWork/XWork *better* suited for the web, > because that is what *I* *need*. I want to get more for less. I don't > give a damn about making it work well in Swing. If it does, then > whaddyaknow, cool. If it doesn't, shit happens. If there's ever a point > where I need to decide between "keeping genericity, or making it work > better for the web", the latter is a given. My recent emails have > explained some of what I want to do in this area (introducing packages > and components for example). Some of those are VERY web-centric, and > that *IS THE POINT*.
I think we should keep swing clients out of the discussion at the moment. Although I do not have very much experience with swing clients, the design patterns differ from the request->response pattern of web or rpc clients. So I see no problem in pushing the development slightly away from the web to a more generic request->response pattern. -billy. -- Meisterbohne Söflinger Straße 100 Tel: +49-731-399 499-0 eLösungen 89077 Ulm Fax: +49-731-399 499-9
msg01183/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
