> My thought is that MVC is a programming model, pardigm or what > have you, and > not an architecture.
I attended a BOF at JavaOne called "Building an MVC Type II Architecture for the SunOne Environement Web Services Platform" by Kartik Ganeshan, Enterprise Java Architect, Sun. He and his team were involved in writing the book "Core J2EE Patterns". He said in his introduction, "MVC Type II - an architecture in itself". > I wrote my own MVC framework, and have seen many many > others out there. Which is exactly why I propose a specification needs to be defined. I am not proposing there be only one implementation :). > If MVC becomes a spec, does that mean Struts is the only > one that does it according to the spec, No, of course not. I'm was proposing it be an open source reference implementation. > and all of the other ones have to > suddenly change (perhaps drastically) to be a correct > implementation of MVC? It is a process. The expert team would be comprised of experts from various MVC projects to arrive at a spec. This is a process that might take a year or two. So it would not be a sudden change for anyone. We're talking about a community process - in other words various MVC projects aligning on a specification. > but I sure would hate to be "forced" (so to > speak) to rework my framework just so that developers would consider it a > "compatible" MVC framework. There is no forcing. Whether a MVC implementation chooses to be compliant with a spec would be entirely their choosing. The ultimate goal here from my perspective is to continue strengthening Java and create less architecture fragmentation. The more united Java is at the architecture level the stronger Java is in the playing field with .net. -- Sandra -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
