Quoting Thomas L Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:49:45 -0500, Thomas L Roche (not speaking for IBM) > >> summary: McClanahan should clearly state *in some major publication* > > >> * that JSF does/will not "replace Struts" > > >> * how JSF and Struts will likely tend to specialize, in future > > >> * how probable specializations will complement (and compete) in > >> webapp development > > Ted Husted Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:28:17 -0500 > > But I think either of us would rather be developing Struts than > > evangelizing Struts. > > This is not about "evangelizing": it's about clarifying the > relationship between 2 large parts of J2EE's future, and correcting > some (apparently) false perceptions. Frankly, I'm perplexed why the > propagation of the latter has gone unchecked for so long. >
That's actually easy to understand. People believe what they want to believe, no matter what I or anyone else says. I've said exactly the same thing about the relationship between Struts and JavaServer Faces for the last 18 months, and it's going to work out pretty much exactly as I've been saying all along. That doesn't mean anyone is listening, however. My personal plan is to speak more with code than with words, and ensure that Struts continues to include useful functionality that is not present in the J2EE platform and its associated standards. That way, the choice of whether or not to use Struts will be based on benefits you gain from using it, just like it always has been, and just like it was P.J. (pre-JavaServer Faces :-). Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
