On 11/11/05, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't agree with you.
I don't mind agreeing to disagree. :) > Eclipse is an empty hangar, which can be > filled up with tools, benches and other machinery. You use each > machine as it is supposed to be used, and you use the hangar just to > transport parts from one machine to another, or to provide some basic > stuff like electricity, ventilation, etc. Actually, Eclipse already comes with plenty. The plugins make a difference, of course. If I had to use Eclipse, I would at least use it with plugins. Some people have to use Struts. Plugins might make their experience more pleasant, so why not use them? > Struts is not a container, it is a framework. It not only provides > features, it imposes a certain way of using them. For example, Struts > Dialogs is an add-on library, but it uses Struts in a way kinda > opposite to "official" rules. A framework can't anticipate every need users will have. If someone needed functionality that Struts Dialogs provided, why not use it? > It is hard for people to use a library > if it is not endorsed by Struts dev team, and even behaves in a > different manner? Even harder for them to make a mind shift. This is what I'm talking about. It's a matter of, uhm, "marketing". With Eclipse, they made it so using plugins is not only accepted, but expected. Why should it be different with Struts? > Speaking > about me, I want not just to provide an add-on library for Struts, but > to change the way Struts applications are written. Yep, I am that > arrogant :-) I cannot do this simply providing an add-on. Sure you can. The add-on I'm playing with right now would allows me to have a POJO action by replacing two Commands on chain-config.xml and adding a third one to put the ActionContext in a ThreadLocal variable. Then a fourth one to populate said Action (POJO or not) with values from the form bean to make it look like WebWork. That's an 18 kb jar file, but a big change in how you can write your Struts action classes. > The problem > here, that I need to convince core devs themselves that my approach is > better ;-) An add on that's independent of the main distro but is used by a lot of people can be pretty convincing. :) > Same with other core technologies like flow. HTML2 is on a fence, > maybe better suited for an add-on. FormDef somewhat changes the usage > of forms too, so it has to be officially endorsed for users to ebrace > it. At least as an optional way, if not the "one and only" proper way. Well, I don't know if any other committer has ever used FormDef. Some of them haven't even heard of it before. It hasn't stopped people from using it, though. Hubert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
