on 7/5/01 2:35 PM, "Charles Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This'll probably start a flamewar but I'm in exactly the same position. I'm
> also torn between the two. I want very much to use Turbine. I've been
> lurking on this list for months and playing with Turbine but I've come to
> the conclusion that I'm going to use Struts. Here's the reasons:
>
> - We're a WebSphere shop. We're building an enterprise infrastructure
> including scalability and security. It ties into WebSphere, Tivoli, etc.
Turbine was originally written on top of WS back when I was doing a gig for
Novell.
> Turbine is not setup to use anything other then its own internal security
> and database pool.
If you look, Turbine's connection pool has a wrapper which talks to WL's
connection pool. You have double pooling of the objects, but there isn't
much overhead with that.
Also, it depends on how you decide to use Turbine. If you are just
interested in the Services/Peer frameworks, then there is no similar system
in Struts.
> - We're a straight IT shop, not a web or product shop. We get body shop
> people for many tasks and its hard enough to get quality people let alone
> train them on Velocity / Turbine. Using a "standard" like JSP helps to
> minimize the training and learning curve problem. You can use JSP with
> Turbine but as every person who asks a JSP question on the list can tell
> you, its not well supported.
Yup. We can't beat out the "standard" of JSP...yet. I will talk more about
that in another month or so if my plan succeeds.
> - Struts is extremely simple to explain and use and performs very well.
> Turbine is very complex. I can easily tweak a Struts app logical flow
> without recompiling and I don't have to track the latest libraries.
Turbine isn't that complex. The complex thing about Turbine is that there
isn't enough perfect documentation in the world to explain every single way
to use Turbine.
> - Struts is very stable. My biggest problem with Turbine is that its a
> constantly moving target. The older versions don't meet my requirements and
> the development version is moving too fast to use (not that that one meets
> all my requirements either).
We have a released version of Turbine 2.1. What is not stable about that?
I don't have any emails from you suggesting what your "requirements" are.
> - And as a very small nit, you can use normal URLs with Struts. I'm sorry
> but telling people to use mod_rewrite is not a solution. I need to be able
> to field an installation package to multiple servers w/o having people
> fiddle around with Apache. It's hard enough getting things through QA onto
> the production boxes as it is.
Huh? What is not normal about Turbine urls?
Here is an example url:
http://www.server.com/context/servlet/whatever?foo=bar
This is what any other Servlet would require.
> What Struts is (primarily) missing is:
> - Layouts
> - Services
> - Database layer
> - Security
>
> Security is a wash, I have to authenticate using WebSphere's security to get
> single sign-on regardless of the approach I take.
>
> It's (relatively) easy to write a JNDI datasource object for Turbine but I
> can't easily rip out the security framework. I'm also not sure about the
> Criteria approach. Instead I'll adapt an extremely simple generator I wrote
> that produces code very similar to the Peers system. I've also looked very
> hard at Castor but I've got problems with its cacheing approach and startup
> times.
So, you solved the problems yourself instead of contributing them to the
community. I consider that a proprietary solution that is worth about zero
for anyone else out there.
Years ago, I did a similar thing and quickly realized that I could try to
build something that a lot of people would appreciate. That is what Turbine
is today. If it doesn't do everything you need, then you can help make it do
so or you can do something on your own and it will most assuredly be custom
for you and not help out the greater community.
> The services I mostly like but I'll end up writing a simple system to
> replace that as well. I don't need most of the complexity in the services
> framework and I want to simplify the logic. If you add service
> dependendency you really don't need the whole early initialization thing.
If you think Services are complex, then I would question your skills. They
are one of the most basic parts of Turbine.
> Layouts and Velocity I'll simply miss. I really, really like Velocity and
> the Turbine layout system. It's simple, easy and powerful. None of my JSP
> alternatives appeal to me. Instead I'll be relying on JSP includes.
Amazing, you said one nice thing.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
