I was worried this would start a war and it wasn't my intent. I have
nothing but respect for the impressive work that's gone into Turbine. My
problem is I don't need most of the functionality you folks have built. I
can build simpler versions with far fewer functions that accomplish what I
need. I can't build simpler versions that accomplish the same tasks. As to
the "normal" URL. I fully admit that its a stupid issue. I just don't like
the %2C's littering my URLs.
Ted Wise
>From: John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: turbine vs. struts
>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 15:04:42 -0700
>
>So let me see if I heard you right. Turbine has too much functionality
>already included and you would prefer to write it yourself, because you
>can do it simpler and better. Struts does not include a lot of the
>parts you are wanting to write for yourself and only offers JSP as a
>view, so it is a better fit for you.
>
>I hope you are planning to share some of this simpler, better code with
>Struts, so others can benefit.
>
>And what is a "normal" URL. There is a spec that URL's must follow and
>Turbine does not deviate from it, I am not sure how it could.
>
>john mcnally
>
>
>
>
>Charles Wise 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 is not setup to use anything other then its own internal
>security
> > and database pool.
> > - 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.
> > - 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.
> > - 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).
> > - 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Ted Wise
> >
> > >From: "Chris Kmiec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: turbine vs. struts
> > >Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 20:51:57
> > >
> > >I am in charge of architecting a little web system which will use some
>of
> > >the jakarta components. I am torn between using Struts and Turbine. I
>am
> > >wondering if maintaining Velocity templates will be more difficult than
> > >just
> > >using straight JSPs with Struts. I want to come up with a solid,
>scaleable
> > >architecture. Any suggestions? Opinions? Pros and cons for either
>solution?
> > >
> > >Thanks!
> > >--Chirs
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
