-Original Message-
From: Paul Benedict [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
Now I hope this opinion doesn't make me unlikeable on this
forum ;-) Maybe I am not holding the
party line, but I can't figure out why the Struts label is
suddenly becoming a multi-framework
branding. It
On 12/5/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note -- in order to avoid confusion, though, please listen to what the
Struts *committers* are saying, and doing. There are lots of off the wall
comments on this thread (and others like it) that represent personal
opinions about what is
On 12/5/05, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again, these two things are not mutually exclusive. The problem is
that people got used to thinking that Struts is a rusty action
framework, that is, front controller, usually stateless, and a lot of
handwork. My feeling is that committers
There are, of course, different web application frameworks. This idea
of having one frameworks, however, is a bit disingenuous and a bit
more than a stretch, don't you think?
On 12/6/05, Pilgrim, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Benedict [mailto:[EMAIL
Ted says Yes but I say No. Listen to everyone. Make the we
more than the people that have committing power. Most people that
correspond on this list are not committers. I personally will listen
to anyone on this list and make up my own mind. But, thanks for the
rejected advice. People like
On 12/3/05, Adam Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted on 02/12/05 04:29, wrote:
We have two because JSF is fundamentally incompatible with
action-orientated frameworks. (As stated on the Struts home page.)
But, that will not be the case for Ti. We plan to create a clear and
A framework, according to the GoF, is a set of cooperating classes
that make up a reusable design for a specific class of software.
A toolkit, according to the GoF, is a set of related and reusable
classes designed to provide useful general purpose functionality.
Essentially, struts has decided
-Original Message-
From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 05 December 2005 12:55
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [FRIDAY] Struts 1.x is Struts Classic after all
On 12/3/05, Adam Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted on 02/12/05 04:29, wrote:
We have
Hi everyone.
I have a strange problem with checkboxes in a formBean :
The form initializes (action /init)
I validate, get my results
I get back, asking /init, everything is fine, the form shows me my
previous selections but
when i uncheck or check one of the boxes and validate again, it does
On 12/5/05, Pilgrim, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two web application architecture out there co-existing and competing
1) Component-Oriented
2) Action-Oriented
If you can bridge these two then you're probably onto a winner, but it is
very unlikely
Depends on your definition
I agree with Michael. The component-oriented approach is in no way that I
can see incompatible with the action-oriented model of things.
In fact, grafting at least the basics of a component model onto Struts
wouldn't even be especially difficult. Especially with Struts 1.3, adding
a command or
On 12/5/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Michael. The component-oriented approach is in no way that I
can see incompatible with the action-oriented model of things.
...
Frankly, an enterprising person or two could create a rather robust
component model layer on top
On Mon, December 5, 2005 1:58 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
Frank, I believe that you understand differencies between JSF
component tree and Struts Dialogs component model.
Yep, I do understand the difference, I was just trying to make the larger
point of component-based vs. action-based :) One
Ok, I guess I have to fix the statement about JSF quickly, before
Craig did that :-) So, according to this:
http://www.icesoft.com/developer_guides/icefaces/htmlguide/keyConcepts5.html
it is possible to plug into JSF lifecycle with Ajax requests and to do
partial updates. So I want to retract my
Dakota Jack wrote the following on 12/3/2005 8:26 PM:
We are not doofuses.
Hey! Speak for yourself! I'm proud of my doofusness.
--
Rick
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 12/5/05, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I guess I have to fix the statement about JSF quickly, before
Craig did that :-)
:-)
So, according to this:
http://www.icesoft.com/developer_guides/icefaces/htmlguide/keyConcepts5.html
it is possible to plug into JSF lifecycle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/3/2005 6:06:27 AM
On 12/2/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may not be marketing anything, Ted. But those of us out in the
field
that work with the decision makers and who help in the decision
making
have to think about these things. It's the reality of
On 12/5/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course. Never meant to imply you were in an ivory tower. Just that
whether Struts has a marketing arm or not, the reality is that for many
of us, what technology we can choose for X job in part hinges on the
*perception* of Struts. So
I think that's part of the confusion, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see it after this
discussion.
Struts = Legacy Struts 1.2.x - Action based architecture
Struts Shale = Framework that leans on JSF and has a compatability
layer written so it can support 1.x Struts apps
See
Struts = Legacy Struts 1.2.x - Action based architecture
Struts Shale = Framework that leans on JSF and has a compatability
layer written so it can support 1.x Struts apps
This is not correct. Struts Shale does not have a compatibility
layer for Struts 1.x apps. There is struts-faces, a
On 12/5/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's part of the confusion, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see it after this
discussion.
Struts = Legacy Struts 1.2.x - Action based architecture
Struts Shale = Framework that leans on JSF and has a
On 12/5/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So given the current state of Struts it would do
some good to clarify and simplify the direction Struts is headed. Maybe
make sure that X version of Struts is component-based, Y version is
action based, etc.
Again, these two things are not
I think this would help you:
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/SnapshotGuide11
.V
Preston CRAWFORD wrote:
I think that's part of the confusion, though.
Struts = Legacy Struts 1.2.x - Action based architecture
Struts Shale = Framework that leans on JSF and has a compatability
layer written so it
Ted Husted on 05/12/05 12:54, wrote:
IMHO, I don't see the engineering value-add of a one size fits all
framework. A framework is a semi-complete application, and action/page
applications are built differently than event/component frameworks.
Since the applications are different, the frameworks
I can see the roof analogy. I just thought, branding wise, it was
confusing. You already have one layer with it being an Apache project.
So really Shale is Apache Struts Shale (formerly a Jakarta project that
still uses lots of Jakarta components). :-)
I don't know. I think the way things are
Hm. Is it untidy that the Apache Software foundation has at least three web
application
frameworks? Should they be untethered from the Apache name and allowed to ride
off... ? For that
matter, why does Apache clutter itself with anything other than the original
httpd?
Joe, I like your
Exactly.
Or back to my example. Apache Jakarta Struts Shale.
Preston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/5/2005 3:12:00 PM
Hm. Is it untidy that the Apache Software foundation has at least
three web application
frameworks? Should they be untethered from the Apache name and allowed
to ride off... ? For that
At 3:12 PM -0800 12/5/05, Paul Benedict wrote:
Hm. Is it untidy that the Apache Software foundation has at least
three web application
frameworks? Should they be untethered from the Apache name and
allowed to ride off... ? For that
matter, why does Apache clutter itself with anything other
It's happened before: Appache HTTP server.
Or Apache Commons?
Just Appache means the server... or ASF?
Realy, it's no big deal. A rose by any other name!
.V
Preston CRAWFORD wrote:
Or back to my example. Apache Jakarta Struts Shale.
That's not true; there are other committers who have done work under Shale.
This is probably my fault, but that's not what I meant. :) When I said it has
nothing to do with
the Struts community, minus the creator, I am not talking about the people,
but the architecture.
As far as I can tell,
Component approach is one thing, page based controllers are another.
On 12/5/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Michael. The component-oriented approach is in no way that I
can see incompatible with the action-oriented model of things.
In fact, grafting at least the
LOL I forgot about you, Rick. My apologies. I am also proud of your
pretended doofusnessity.
On 12/5/05, Rick Reumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dakota Jack wrote the following on 12/3/2005 8:26 PM:
We are not doofuses.
Hey! Speak for yourself! I'm proud of my doofusness.
--
Rick
Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
what does this AJAX module offer that can't be
accomplished outside Shale with little difficulty? I ask because, AJAX
being nothing but normal HTTP requests, is inherently supported by any
web framework in existence today. Oh, don't get me wrong, there are
some
My point though is... well, I guess now I have two :) First, every web
framework in existence can trivially support AJAX in whatever way one
wants because it's just an HTTP request.
Second, AJAX is in no way, shape or form anything new, revolutionary, or
a paradigm shift *except* to the
Frank,
I did the similar thing for a mainframe integration project. I think what
was great in the architecture is the 2 hidden frames behind scene, 1 for
JavaScript and HTML form mapping, another hidden frame for form submission.
The benefit of the archtecture is
1. HTML forms are cached, there
On 12/2/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may not be marketing anything, Ted. But those of us out in the field
that work with the decision makers and who help in the decision making
have to think about these things. It's the reality of living and
developing in a world where
On 12/2/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Preach on, brother :)
:) My own favorite sermon is also an ASF motto: Be the change you
want to see in the world. Or, the more popular, sometimes sardonic:
Thanks for volunteering. :)
On 12/2/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ted Husted on 02/12/05 04:29, wrote:
We have two because JSF is fundamentally incompatible with
action-orientated frameworks. (As stated on the Struts home page.)
But, that will not be the case for Ti. We plan to create a clear and
relatively painless migration path, so that investments in skill
I don't think people forget we're not selling anything, Ted. We are
not doofuses. Does this we you are talking about include us? I'm
for this move, completely in favor of it, but I really wonder about
separating the people from your we.
On 12/1/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
This is an interesting guess. Is that 70% more than a guess or is
there some basis to think that?
On 12/1/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the fact that Struts has always stressed backwards
compatibility of the key APIs as a
Crap! You are going to move that chain junk into WebWork? Do they know that?
On 12/1/05, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, considering I started work a couple of hours ago, no, nothing yet :)
I can tell you my approach I thought of today - replace the WebWork
ServletDispatcher with a
That's funny, porting struts to shale. Now there is truth!
On 12/2/05, netsql [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in CoR so it could be ported to Shale and others :-) ?
.V
Ted Husted wrote:
and a iBATIS JPetShop port would be next. Film at 11. :)
What I don't understand is why JSF was built when there was Tapestry?
Is there an explanation for that?
On 12/2/05, Rick Reumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don Brown wrote the following on 12/2/2005 12:44 AM:
When we started Struts Ti, it was conceived as a new
framework that aimed to
Does anyone (I mean anyone) believe that Shale is a potential
future. Don't even its most avid advocates see it as a temporary
transition to some JSF deal?
On 12/2/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, I can't believe I'm about to say this given some of the comments
I've
If JSF spec gets refactored in some future to simplify ( just like EJB3,
maybe we need to wait for JSF v3, and like EJB likely things will get
worse before they get better) everyone wins. CoR is great, it's KISS,
and imo better than Spring factories for configuration.
I now think *Shale is most
IMHO, I do not believe Shale should be under the Struts name. I really hope
Shale is not
piggy-backing off the good name of Struts so it gets adoption. I can't say
for sure, but I do
get that impression at times. I think it should be completely spun off and
disassociated from
Struts, or be
netsql wrote:
For now, Shale has an Ajax support module, and no other back end
(middleware?) framework does AFAIK, and that's enogh.
Just out of curiosity, what does this AJAX module offer that can't be
accomplished outside Shale with little difficulty? I ask because, AJAX
being nothing but
in CoR so it could be ported to Shale and others :-) ?
.V
Ted Husted wrote:
and a iBATIS JPetShop port would be next. Film at 11. :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
On 12/2/05, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Struts died long live Struts?
Yes. The ASF envisions that our projects can have livespans counted by
decades. Not months, not years. Decades. No one expects a project to
retain the same codebase year after year, decade after decade.
As
-Original Message-
From: Don Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
====
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'd ask
that you reserve
judgement until at least the first Struts Ti release. Yes,
we plan to seed
Struts Ti with WebWork 2.2, but that doesn't mean it
On 12/2/05, netsql [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in CoR so it could be ported to Shale and others :-) ?
.V
It is already there.
Craig
Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 12/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Struts is pretty cool. But JSF seems to be the future so I am now
learning it. But I am getting really confused about Shale versus pure JSF
versus Struts. Maybe Craig McClanahan can give me some more
Don Brown wrote the following on 12/2/2005 12:44 AM:
When we started Struts Ti, it was conceived as a new
framework that aimed to simplify the developers life requiring no
configuration,
What?? No configuration? You mean you aren't using the Spring/ EJB/
JASS/ RMI/ Hibernate/ JMS/
Preach on, brother Rick! :)
I think your arguments about simplicity are very cogent. I think too
often, people mistake having to do less work for something being more
simple. Simplicity, to me, is being able to fully understand what it is
I'm doing, not necessarily having to do less of it.
Rick Reumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/02/2005 03:11:48 PM:
Don Brown wrote the following on 12/2/2005 12:44 AM:
When we started Struts Ti, it was conceived as a new
framework that aimed to simplify the developers life requiring no
configuration,
What?? No configuration? You
You may not be marketing anything, Ted. But those of us out in the field
that work with the decision makers and who help in the decision making
have to think about these things. It's the reality of living and
developing in a world where there are so many options.
Preston
You know, I can't believe I'm about to say this given some of the comments
I've made in the past, but here goes anyway...
I think the compatibility later is almost pointless and maybe the effort
isn't worth it.
The reason I say this is that many people have the opinion that Struts is
old news
Rick ...realy consider Rails crowd input. Please spend 2 hours on
Groovy, as per example on Resin.
I am going to find a way for CoR create Groovy classes.
.V
Rick Reumann wrote:
aimed to simplify the developers life requiring no
configuration,
What?? No configuration? You mean you
AMEN!
Less Code Simple
In my experience, over-complexificationialzing in the name of writing
less code always makes for more cost.
Larry
On 12/2/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Preach on, brother Rick! :)
I think your arguments about simplicity are very cogent. I think too
Maybe I do not know how to do business. Heck, I do not have MBA. But
for some reason I have a sour taste in the mouth. If
StrutsTi/Struts2.0 is so heavily based on WebWork code that one did
put an equal sign between the two, then Struts2.0 is not Struts
anymore. It would be honest just to say that
the future? And
if it is which JSF should I be learning?
--Brad
-Original Message-
From: Michael Jouravlev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 6:47 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: [FRIDAY] Struts 1.x is Struts Classic after all
Maybe I do not know how to do business
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'd ask that you reserve
judgement until at least the first Struts Ti release. Yes, we plan to seed
Struts Ti with WebWork 2.2, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way or
that Struts Action 1.x users and even code aren't important. I just
+1 on Don's serious message below (API compatibility is the key), but in a
somewhat more whimsical way in light of the [FRIDAY] prefix.
On 12/1/05, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I'd ask that you reserve
judgement until at least the first
On 12/1/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Struts is pretty cool. But JSF seems to be the future so I am now
learning it. But I am getting really confused about Shale versus pure JSF
versus Struts. Maybe Craig McClanahan can give me some more insite into
what I should
And this is about where I start ramping up my Ruby studying.
I mean, I'm all for competing frameworks, but when the Struts umbrella
covers 3 different frameworks (which in term utilize how many
technologies?) it begins to get a little silly. Which one should I be
learning/using? I know,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/1/2005 7:30:16 PM
My personal belief is that component oriented development is more
accessible
to a wider array of developers than action oriented frameworks.
Therefore,
I spend my time (disclaimer: I'm paid to do this too, but that
doesn't
cover much of my open source
On 12/1/05, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is open source - if you are convinced Struts Action 1.x is the one true
way, feel free to jump in and contribute. Just because Struts Ti may be
right for me, it may not be for you.
That is not what I meant. I meant that I will not buy
On 12/1/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/1/2005 7:30:16 PM
My personal belief is that component oriented development is more
accessible
to a wider array of developers than action oriented frameworks.
Therefore,
I spend my time (disclaimer: I'm paid to do
On 12/1/05, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/1/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put another way, my application depends on a Duck API, with methods like
drumstick() and bill() and foot() that do things for me. Am I going to care
if the internal implementation
On 12/1/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing
list.
Point well taken (although it still gets to ~3000 direct subscribers and
unknown numbers of people who look in the mail archives) ... seems like a
blogworthy subject as
On 12/1/05, Michael Jouravlev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have nothing against WebWork, I had looked into it once or twice, it
is surely a nice framework, but I will not buy WebWork skinned as
Struts.
I think what people sometimes forget is that we're not selling anything.
If we were tring to
On 12/1/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your overall explaination helps, but it's sitting on a mailing list.
Hey, you heard it here first :)
All of these explanations start on the user or dev list and work
their way into the website.
We don't have a marketing staff to run around
On 12/1/05, Preston CRAWFORD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, I'm all for competing frameworks, but when the Struts umbrella
covers 3 different frameworks (which in term utilize how many
technologies?) it begins to get a little silly.
Hmmm, there won't be three, only two. Ti is a codename for
On 12/1/05, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the fact that Struts has always stressed backwards
compatibility of the key APIs as a fundamental principle is one of they key
reasons that it has been successful.
Hmmm, perhaps, but not for the obvious reason. I'd guess that 70% of
the
On 12/1/05, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
I just started working
on the Struts Action 1.x compatibility layer tonight so its too
early to say,
snap/
On 12/1/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Meanwhile, I'm working on a set of rosetta
applications that show how
Well, considering I started work a couple of hours ago, no, nothing yet :)
I can tell you my approach I thought of today - replace the WebWork
ServletDispatcher with a Common-Chain RequestProcessor then weave in a
command or two that detects what type of action is being called, and
delegates to
On 12/1/05, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, considering I started work a couple of hours ago, no, nothing yet :)
snip/
You mean its going to take you more than two hours? ;-)
But seriously, thanks for sharing the paragraph below, thats exactly
what I was looking for, a sneak preview of
On 12/1/05, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other question - ti/phase2 is already there, and ti/phase1 comes
next? Are we counting down, whats the insight into the nomenclature?
Dessert first? :) When we started Struts Ti, it was conceived as a new
framework that aimed to simplify
On 12/1/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, we're not trying to market Struts.
Is this a good thing? Anyway, please allow me not to believe in this.
A good engineer doesn't reinvent the wheel.
Right. Then come guys from marketing department and attach the labels
so the wheel could be
79 matches
Mail list logo
