Rich is 100% right: Of course struts is a standard - a de facto standard.
Even though there are 30+ other webframeworks out there, struts seems to be the one
that is most widely used. And that is what makes it a de facto standard.
The other way of creating a standard is having an organization arguing about something
for a couple of years and then write a paper, which they call a standard. Whether the
standard is adopted by the industry or not is a different story.
Bottom line: Whether something is a 'standard' or not, does not matter at all. It's
adoption that counts.
-hendrik
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Auftrag von Richard O. Hammer
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Marz 2004 09:43
> An: Research Triangle Java User's Group mailing list.
> Betreff: Re: [Juglist] standards, JCP, Apache
>
>
> Phillip Rhodes wrote:
> > Thomas L Roche wrote:
>
>
> >> What I'm wondering is, are there folks who would consider the latter
> >> statement _not_ b******t? If so, why? Because ISTM that the many of
> >> the Jakarta (and other Apache) tools are pretty damn standard--e.g.
> >> Ant, Tomcat, and, for that matter, Struts. Am I missing something?
>
>
> > I'm not sure it really matters though. There seems to be room
> > for both Struts and JSF, and both will probably be around for
> > the forseeable future.
>
> So we may have standards of two types, those which grow spontaneously
> and are later discovered or proclaimed to be standards, and those
> which are intentionally created as standards from the inception.
>
> Rich Hammer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Juglist mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
_______________________________________________
Juglist mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
