Just last week I was talking to another senior architect at my company,
and he was asking me how a developer knows what they should get when
they go to the Struts site? He was asking me what "Struts" was at this
point. It was more than just a navigation issue, he thought there was a
very confused message. I agreed with him, and have for some time...
I've spoken on this in the past, but I hope I'm not counted as one of
"our more radical members"! :)
I personally came to grips with how things were a while ago, but it's
nice to see someone on the Struts team tackling the same issue.
Clearly, as evidenced by that conversation last week, it's still
definitely an issue that could use some discussion.
My one thought when reading your proposal Don is that I'm not sure what
answer I would have been giving him if things were the way you
describe... I'm not sure, to me anyway, that it really clarifies anything.
I'm also not sure I agree that Shale could be considered a library.
People tend to think of a library as something relatively lightweight,
and with all that Shale offers, I'm not sure I could ever consider it
that. Your point about it being able to be used peace meal makes some
sense, but I'm not sure something ceases to be a framework just because
you can swap pieces in and out, or not use pieces at will. To me, that
just makes it very flexible :)
I'm also concerned that building such a "hybrid", as you describe, would
lead to even more confusion, even though it's one framework. I happen
to agree with you, and similarly have changed my thinking a bit, in
terms of frameworks being wider in scope than Struts historically has
been. On the other hand, coming to something like Webwork is, I think,
more daunting than "classic" Struts precisely because there is so much
more to take in, and I think such a hybrid would only be that much more
daunting. Struts has been the success it has been largely because it's
been pretty easy for people to pick up and go (we're only starting to
think otherwise with the advent of things like Rails, which makes it
even easier purportedly, but before that, Struts was pretty good!).
While I'm not sure about the details of your proposal (nor am I honestly
sure how to do any better), I do think it tries to address the root
problem: the Struts "umbrella" idea, from what I've heard talking to the
people I talk to, has lead to more confusion than anything else. I
think it disregards a key historical point: that "Struts" meant a very
specific thing: a framework, for a long time. That's what people know
it as. I don't know if the umbrella idea was a good one or not, and
that probably doesn't matter any more anyway... I get the sense that the
message of that conceptual change didn't get translated very well to a
lot of people outside the Struts team, and that's where the confusion
comes from.
Just some initial thoughts anyway... your underlying principal is one I
can get behind, although I'm not sure yet if I quite like the
particulars :) In any case, I'm glad it's apparently not a taboo
subject, as it sometimes seemed in the past.
Frank
Don Brown wrote:
As Shale and Action zero in on their first GA release, I don't think it
is too
late to ask the question, "Does Struts really need two frameworks?" We
have
been putting out the message, "two frameworks, one community", for
almost a year
now, but I still sense a lot of confusion and even rejection from the
Struts
community. The problem is for our whole history, Struts was a single
framework,
what you went to if you wanted to structure your web application
according to
Model2 principles. Our attempts to turn Struts into an umbrella project, I
feel, have failed.
Struts Action 2 is seen, by some, as a simple rebranding of WebWork 2,
and to be
honest, it really is at this stage. Struts Shale is seen as non-sequitur,
milking the Struts brand name. While these opinions are most extremely
expressed by our more radical members, they are also held to some degree
by some very smart, sensible people [1].
From a Struts committer perspective, Wendy made a good point to me the
other
day saying that Struts lacks the single purpose or vision of most Open
Source
projects. Despite our recent attempts to find common ground, Shale and
Action
are still positioned as competing frameworks with no overlap. This
division
leads to conflicts that suck the joy out of Open Source development.
Recently, Struts Action 2 unified the programming models of action-based
and
component-based development by allowing the developer to adopt an
action-based
approach for an application, yet use JSF components and abilities where
needed.
We have always said the desired end state would be to return Struts into a
unified framework, and I think we should jump on this chance now.
I propose Struts return to its roots as a unified framework through
building on
three libraries to make JSF and pure Servlet/JSP development easier.
Namely,
I propose the Struts project to be the following subprojects, each with
their
own release cycle:
- Framework: Struts 2
- Libraries: Struts Action, Shale and Struts Tags
Struts would be the single framework the world would see. It would contain
support for Action-based, JSF-based, and hybrid applications. Its
documentation
would promote the Struts Action controller as the preferred entry point,
even if only to be used for AJAX services. Its JSF library, Struts
Shale, however, could be used with a regular FacesServlet. JSF
components and Struts Tags would be equals when describing how to tackle
the View of an application.
Struts Action would be the core library driving Struts 2, replace Struts
1.x.
This library would be everything now known as Struts Action 2, but
without the
UI components. We would aim for a solid Action-based library
independent of the
view, much like Action 1.x. When we talked about what an Action JSR
would look
like, this would be it.
Struts Shale would be repositioned as a library, which I think is a
better fit.
A framework to me is a comprehensive, one-stop-shop solution to create an
application. A library is a collection of independent features that can
be used
in piecemeal. Therefore, I think a library is a better definition for
Shale's
collection of JSF extensions. While Struts Action would definitely support
Shale, it would continue to be able to be used with pure JSF applications.
Struts Tags would be the WebWork UI components, a library of re-usable,
stateless tags that can be used in Velocity, Freemarker, or JSP. They
would
include current and future AJAX tags. These tags would most likely
remain tied
to Struts Action 2, but not necessarily.
How would this benefit Struts Action? By splitting of the tags, we can
focus on
the core project and get it out the door quicker. By publicizing our
JSF and
Shale integration, we would open our framework up to a broader audience.
How would this benefit Struts Shale? Shale would also be opened up to a
broader,
Action-based audience and wouldn't be seen as a competitor to Struts
Action. It
wouldn't lose its autonomy or pure JSF support. It would gain developer
support as more Action-based apps would start to use JSF and need Shale.
How would this benefit Struts Tags? The tags could evolve quicker with
faster
releases due to less code. They would be free to add new marginal features
without worrying about bloating Struts. This project would be analogous to
MyFaces Tomahawk as a library of components.
How would this benefit the Struts community? Finally, Struts returns to its
roots as a single framework. While pieces of it may be usable outside the
Action-based controller like Shale, it becomes the single place you go
to solve
your application development needs. The documentation would be unified
and the
supporting committer community in step. If you wanted the whole
framework, you
download Struts. If you just want one of the libraries, they are
available ala
carte as well.
This proposed change is primarily one of message and vision, and should
have
minimal impact on current development activity. With the next
generation of
books and conferences in the works, I think it is important to develop a
clear
message to the Struts community and minimize any confusion.
The bottom line is we want Struts to be the place to go to make web
development
easier, faster, with less hassles. I think this proposal provides the
vision to
make that happen.
Don
[1]
http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2006/06/isnt_rails_supposed_to_change.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Frank W. Zammetti
Founder and Chief Software Architect
Omnytex Technologies
http://www.omnytex.com
AIM: fzammetti
Yahoo: fzammetti
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java Web Parts -
http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net
Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
