Hard to believe there was a time when Cobol ruled the universe and programs were designed in a 'top-down' fashion isn't it? And as an old (actually 40+) mainframe programmer who is trying to make the transition from the non-object world of Cobol and (gasp here) assembler to the object-oriented world of Java (and JSP and struts and XML and and and), there are times when I really miss those 'good old days'. But then I think, nah, just post a question on the mailing list and get the 'right' answer from all of you guys!
Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:51 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: RE: Struts Design/construction process. question I saw this thread and thought..."great, flame war...", but you guys are too nice. IMHO I suggest you learn from the guru before trying this next time: http://www.IamMarkGalbreath.org/FlameWar/HowTo/AnnoyTheHellOutOfEveryone Niall P.S. 'old (35?) mainframe programmers' on this list must have seen the light...Hallelujah! > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I'd like to apologize for that comment... I did not mean it as a bad > thing... > > I guess I just liken the old mainframes with the old programming > methodologies that involved tons of upfront planning and an pretty > unflexible design once programming started. Back when the project > delivery times were in years, not weeks... > > :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry.Jalenak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > As an 'old mainframe programmer' I resent this..... (:-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I tend to agree on this. I have only done a few things in struts, but > have been programming for quite a while. The idea of pumping everything > > out in seperate development projects just out right scares me. If this > was to have any chance of working out you would need: > > (1) A horrendous amount of upfront planning > (2) Program requirements that don't change at all > (3) A programming team that would not quit during an upfront design this > > heavy > > > All in all, if its a large project you could probably dub it a death > march project. > > #1 is too terrible to consider, #2 is just plain silly, #3... well... > > Personally, iterative development has worked in most of the projects I > have been on and run. > > Thats all from here... > > PS. Are the project managers old mainframe programmers or something? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: josephb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:54 PM > To: struts-user > Subject: RE: Struts Design/construction process. question > > > This reminds me of the adage a former professor of mine used to preach: > "It is much easier to build a program than to give birth to one." > > The "pump out a list of components" and "while bringing the page to > life" > parts of your message make it sound an awful lot like your project > management is involved in obstetrics in addition to software > development. :) > > Seriously, though, you *will* run into problems doing things this way. > For > instance, having a junior developer create 60 form beans for the > expected > inputs on each page has several implications: > > 1. Your action developers will have to modify the beans anyway most > likely > because the form bean developer cannot know things like whether an array > > or > a List is more appropriate for collection data in a particular instance > (this usually depends on the Action). > > 2. A naming convention for the beans must be established or madness will > ensue. > > 3. It may make sense to re-use a form bean for different jsps, or nest > form > beans depending on the implementation of the action classes. The form > bean > developer will not know the nature of this implementation ahead of time > and > thus cannot make these decisions. > > b.t.w., there are tools (or you can build your own) for generating basic > ActionForm beans, so this is not really an issue anyway. > > > > I have always assumed that the action classes would be completed > > at the same > > time that the page is converted to jsp/struts. > > Add "ActionForm classes" to the above statement and you are entirely > correct. We tend to view an Action, its ActionForm, and the > presentation > logic (i.e., Struts tags) in their associated JSP(s) as an "action > module" > of sorts, and a single developer is resonsible for these components. > Things > become very messy when you try to split the JSP, ActionForm, and Action > work > to different developers, IMHO. > > > My $.02 ( more like $1.02?) > > > peace, > > Joe Barefoot > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:16 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Struts Design/construction process. question > > > > > > > > > > This is our *FIRST* Struts project and we are putting together a > > construction > > plan. > > > > I would like to find out how other projects divide the work > > between developers. > > Our project management would like to see a developer pump out a > list(s) of > > disconnected components and have one person "connect" them together. > > > > Our page layout is well in place, and I can create a list of form > beans. > > *note - we are not using dynabeans. > > > > So... our HMTL guy can go ahead a create the 60 pages in one shot. > > A junior developer can create 60 form beans.... > > > > If you are not using something like Junit, is it practical to > > design and create > > many action classes ahead of time? > > > > I have always assumed that the action classes would be completed > > at the same > > time that the page is converted to jsp/struts. > > I would have already created a generic template (that would > > compile and run ), > > so it seems to me that the final code in the perform method > > would be added while brining the page to life. > > > > I would enjoy hearing other stories. > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > This transmission (and any information attached to it) may be > confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or > entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient > or the person responsible for delivering the transmission to the > intended recipient, be advised that you have received this transmission > in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or > copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please immediately notify LabOne at > (800)388-4675. > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:struts-user-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This transmission (and any information attached to it) may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the transmission to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this transmission in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify LabOne at (800)388-4675. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
