On 12/15/05, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dakota, > > Last week, I wrote about three messages voicing my opinon that I think it > is an error to accept > Shale under the Struts banner. I still hold that to be true, but I also > see the justification of > the commiters, which are: > > [1] Struts is now an "umbrella" label to contain MANY frameworks. As the > old Action 1.x framework > phases out, others will come in like WebWork/Struts 2.x, Shale, etc. > > [2] Many companies recognize the Struts label, so having Shale called > Struts Shale allows your > manager to instantly buy into the technology. > > [3] IBM has certified Struts; so this is certification for Shale too (ala > point #2). > > [4] Sharing the Struts community with Shale is a big win for JSF. > > I can't really argue with these opinions; their reasoning is sound. The > philosophy is certainly > much different than mine and I prefer Struts to be the name of ONE > FRAMEWORK ONLY TO PREVENT > BRANDING DILUTION, but I was told by a Commiter "what difference does it > make to you?" Well I > certainly won't be caring anymore with that kind of response :) I cared > because I was interested > in not diluting the brand name but... I can only care so much since, in > reality, it's not my > decision and responsibility anyway.
By the way, the original decision to incorporate Shale as a subproject occurred nearly 11 months ago: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=110651419515521&w=2 -- Paul Craig
