I can see the roof analogy. I just thought, branding wise, it was confusing. You already have one layer with it being an Apache project. So really Shale is Apache Struts Shale (formerly a Jakarta project that still uses lots of Jakarta components). :-)
I don't know. I think the way things are headed technically is great. Having had experience with Tapestry, Ruby on Rails and now learning JSF, I think Struts is headed in the right direction. It's the branding thatI think is still going to be confusing. But maybe that's just me. Preston >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/5/2005 3:20:27 PM >>> Ted Husted on 05/12/05 12:54, wrote: > 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. Surely the framework (singular) wraps the HTTP request response paradigm? > 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 :) I like the analogy. Thanks for the clarification. Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
