On Apr 1, 2005 12:48 PM, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > Feel free to continue using Struts, however, if that floats *your* boat.
>
> It's not really as simple as that though, is it Craig?
>
Sure it is. People will continue to use Struts no matter what happens
with JSF -- the world doesn't turn corners overnight.
Also, remember that the world isn't binary. Even if JSF is "good"
that doesn't make Struts "bad" -- it would just mean that Struts might
be "no longer the best" (as many advocates of other MVC frameworks
will already argue, even without JSF in the picture). And those
people are right, for the use cases where the other frameworks do a
better job.
> You have a great deal of sway, your opinion carries a lot of weight.
> You have earned that without question. So by you making proclamations,
> even if veiled proclamations, people are going to listen and form a
> conclusion on what you are *really* telling them. Their conclusion may
> be wrong, but it will have an impact on them none the less. As someone
> else said, the easy (and I think obvious) conclusion is that Struts is
> nearing an end, JSF is what we should be doing.
There's been lots of comments about what "everyone is saying" (here,
about JSF, but in general about any technology). To make good
decisions, however, it is useful to divide "everyone" into several
categories:
(1) Those who have evaluated the technology and can
tell you exactly what they like and don't like about it.
Of this population, some will choose to adopt it and
some will not.
(2) Those who were forced to use the technology, and
because of their experience can tell you exactly what
they like and don't like about it.
(3) Those who haven't looked at the technology, and
are only echoing what they've heard (either positive
or negative).
When a technology first becomes available, the number of people in
category (1) is very small, and the "hype" around it (both positive
and negative) is mostly from people in category (3). Over time, the
number of people in category (2) grows if a technology becomes widely
adopted, and the number of people with informed opinions grows.
A pretty large number of existing Struts users came in as category (2)
-- it was adopted as a company standard by many organizations, so
there was no choice but to use it for that company's applications --
and there are more than a few of them with legitimate technical
complaints about Struts, especially from those who might have
preferred something like WebWork or Tapestry, but were not allowed to
use them.
Basically, my advice is to pay attention to the folks in category (1)
and category (2), and ignore the folks in category (3). But the ideal
position for *you* to be in is category (1) -- try it out, and see if
it meets your own needs, and use it *if* it does.
> I think there is little question that you have taken every opportunity
> to tell everyone that JSF is in fact "the future". There is no doubt in
> my mind that you actually believe that. And I'm not about to say you
> won't wind up being right! Time will tell.
One could say that, beyond just saying this, I'm betting my career on
it. My "day job" is being architect for Sun Java Studio Creator, a
product that is very much based on JSF.
But, given my role in both Struts and JSF (I was co-spec-lead for JSF
1.0), I would hope people consider me to be in category (1) on the
above classification scale.
> But, you do work for a company with a profit motive in JSF... How could
> that NOT put some doubt in peoples' minds? Are we being lead down a
> path that might not actually be the best technically, because their is
> profit in it for someone? I don't know, and it worries me, especially
> when one of the big proponents of said path is someone I very much
> respect and listen to. But then there's the rub, right? Am I making my
> decision based on a reasoned examination of the solution being offered,
> or because I trust the person delivering the message?
If you use JSF solely because *I* (or anyone else) says to -- or
*don't* use it simply because someone says it is crap -- you're being
a category (3) person. All I want you to do is evaluate it for
yourself, and make your own decision.
> This is the problem with JSF at this juncture... It isn't just a project
> released to the world that takes hold, as Struts was. JSF is something
> sponsored and pushed as a standard by a company that is in business to
> make money, and by a person who works for that company, among others.
> There HAS to be some doubt there, doesn't there?
You might want to note that JSF is not just a Sun initiative. There
were 40 companies in the expert group, the final vote on the 16-member
JCP Executive Committee was unanimous in favor, and more than a few
companies have products and component libraries based on it. In the
Apache incubator you'll also see an Apache-licensed open source effort
to create a compatible implementation.
If you want to doubt me because I'm biased, that's fine. So go
evaluate it YOURSELF instead of just listening to me!
>
> Am I alone in this thinking? If so I'll be happy to shut up and just
> see how it all goes, but I have to think I'm not the only one...
>
It doesn't matter to me what anyone in Category (3) says, positive or
negative. Success of a technology is measured by category (1)
adopters, which (of course) leads to category (2) adopters later on.
And it is already happening.
So which category are you (directed at everyone, not just Frank) in?
> Frank W. Zammetti
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
