On 12/3/05, Adam Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Husted on 02/12/05 04:29, wrote: > > We have two because JSF is fundamentally incompatible with > > action-orientated frameworks. (As stated on the Struts home page.) > > But, that will not be the case for Ti. We plan to create a clear and > > relatively painless migration path, so that investments in skill sets > > and working code will be retained. (Including our own.) > > There is nothing preventing Struts X.x offering both 'incompatible' > frameworks. Struts 1.x, the 'action'-based framework and other > 'component'-based frameworks are composed of perhaps code that is or > could be 75% 'action' or 'component'-agnostic.
We are already sharing the the "agnostic" code via Commons components that both Action and Shale use. After we extracted the Commons componetns in the 1.1 era, all that's really left in Struts Action is code that overlaps with JavaServer Faces. Since Shale leverages JavaServer Faces and Commons, there's very little left that the frameworks could share. And, if we found something they could share, I'm sure it would quickly be moved to the Commons or to its own subproject (witness Tiles). > > Why burn bridges? It would be better to incorporate to cut down the > central component of the struts action and move all agnostic material to > the side, pretty much as Shale is now. > > At that point Struts could then incorporate a 'component'-based > framework module to match the action-based framework. > > Don't forget, 'Struts' means 'A structural element used to brace or > strengthen a framework [...]' not 'foundation stone'. Yes, we've aggressively moved the Action foundation classes to the Commons. What's left here is glue code that connects the Digester with Bean and Collection and Chain, and cobbles together Action-specific ideas like the Request Processor. Struts has always been about providing the glue, or "struts", between existing standards. And, unsurprisingly, that's exactly what Shale is trying to do. AFAICT, Shale is about as Struts-like as JSF can get. At least without sacrificing the intent of the JSF architecture. Meanwhile, the great thing about WebWork is that our communities have the same perspective. WebWork integrates several foundation packages, like XWork, OGNL, and FreeMarker, into a coherent framework that any Struts developer will find familiar. (Especially if you've been tinkering with 1.3.) IMHO, I don't see the engineering value-add of a "one size fits all" framework. A framework is a semi-complete application, and action/page applications are built differently than event/component frameworks. Since the applications are different, the frameworks should be different too. Some people in our community want to dive into JavaServer Faces, and others want to pursue the tried-and-true action-orientated approach. Rather than burn bridges, we're built a bigger roof :) -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
