On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:50:05 -0700, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * The proposed Struts Core doesn't contain or use any > JSF components -- it presumes the use of the infrastructure > stuff (managed beans, expressions, navigation mapping, > as well as the basic request processing lifecycle) > that is darned useful, and would have to be reinvented > by any non-JSF-based implementation anyway. This makes complete sense to me. JSF seems to handle these things really well so why reinvent the wheel on this? JSF does seem to be picking up momentum as a standard. It will take a while for sure, but if Craig is correct about it being part of J2EE 5.0, this will only hasten its adoption. At some point it will not make sense to continue evolving Struts in its current form. Bug fixes and minor tweaks are one thing, but we don't want to be working at cross purposes. If JSF can handle x,y, and z better then lets focus on what it doesn't handle very well. > * Even if the core controller part of Struts was JSF-agnostic > (except for an implementation of the APIs based on it), > you still can't write an application on top of this without committing > to a choice in view tier technology. The more stuff like how > validation errors are propogated that we have to abstract in > order to be JSF-agnostic, the more complicated we make > the architecture; and the more code we have to wrte and fix > and document and test. I agree with this statement as well. > * Finally, there's a "marketing" viewpoint :-). The world has changed > since Struts was first developed, and there's so many frameworks > out there that people get laughed at on TheServerSide etc. for > creating YAWAF (yet another web application framework). Without > some distinguishing characteristic, what (besides the "Struts" > name) would we bring to the table that all the other non-JSF-specific > frameworks already do? I think this is a very important issue. If JSF does indeed catch on, then the very first thing a perspective user will want to know about Struts Shale is, "How does this work with JSF?" (Same as when JSF came along and we all asked ourselves, "How does this fit in with Struts?") Let me summarize what I think Craig is suggesting. He and others can correct me if I'm wrong: 1.) Forget about backwards compatability with Struts 1.x 2.) Focus exclusively on value added to JSF (even if the user ultimately doesn't want to use JSF). This includes things like "dialogs" and would focus primarily on the controller 3.) Design with an eye towards using it with JSF but with little (or no) dependencies on it. We could continue to develop Struts 1.x versions for the forseeable future, but the real innovations would take place in Struts Shale. Thus users who migrate from Struts to JSF, and users who never used Struts and are starting with JSF, can use the new Struts Shale for the extra goodies. Users who want no part in JSF and like the old Struts framework can keep on with Struts 1.x (with the option to integrate with JSF using struts-faces.) > Craig sean --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
