Just in case you are having difficulty with seeing the list, Josh, here it is:
<chortle> > I would argue that with Java (J2EE specifically) "standards" have largely > just "emerged". Think of all the examples. > > Tomcat > Ant > Struts > JUnit > Hibernate > > That's, by and large, the "standard" J2EE toolkit. </chortle> There you have it. See? No servlets! No JSP! Good to go now? Would you endorse this statement that this list constitutes the "'standard' J2EE toolkit"? Also, one might note that J2EE is a framework and not a toolkit. Ted Husted often treats these two things alike and so often starts thinking of frameworks as just another part of an application, but that does not mean it is a good thing to think. The GoF are good on this distinction. On 12/13/05, Josh McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last I checked servlets / jsp were part of J2EE. > > -- > > "His comrades fought beside him, Van Owen and the rest... > But of all the thompson gunners- Roland was the best." > > Josh McDonald > Analyst Programmer > Information Technology > Ph: 61 7 3006 6460 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14/12/2005 4:31:21 pm >>> > Preston, none of those examples are J2EE. They can be used with J2EE > but > they have nothing to do with anything beyond J2SE. > > > On 12/13/05, Preston Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't know what the future will hold. JSF may win the day on > nothing > > > but marketing alone. It has the force of being a "standard", and > while > > > not all standards ultimately succeed, it certainly is a leg up on > other > > > > I would argue that with Java (J2EE specifically) "standards" have > largely > > just "emerged". Think of all the examples. > > > > Tomcat > > Ant > > Struts > > JUnit > > Hibernate > > > > That's, by and large, the "standard" J2EE toolkit. And by that I mean > that > > while we may have WebSphere, Tapestry, Maven, EJBs, etc. there's a > certain > > concensus out there and the tools in the first list are what have > the > > mindshare now. > > > > So my point of interest is this. JSF, from what I'm seeing here > > (especially when the actual developers of Struts talk about their > reasons > > for jumping to JSF) and reading elsewhere is actually succeeding IN > SPITE > > of the fact that it's not sitting in the OpenSource non-standard > seat, as > > Tapestry is. I find this interesting. It was bound to happen > eventually, > > that one of Sun's reference implementations would actually become a > > standard. I know, EJB is a standard. But look how many people have > been > > abandoning that in favor of more lightweight solutions, once those > > solutions presented themselves. > > > > So I think the fact that JSF is getting traction IN SPITE of the fact > that > > it isn't quite as open, hasn't been open sourced as long as Tapestry, > etc. > > is a testament to the fact that developers appear to like it. I just > > wanted to know (and you all have been immensely helpful in this > respect) > > if you could get done with it, what you can with Struts. Thus the > question > > wasn't "Is JSF better than Struts?" The question was "Is JSF ready?" > > > > And that is the question for me. I know what I can and can't do in > Struts. > > I've been programming with it for 5 years. I know its power and I > also > > know I've been involved with some amazingly convoluted hacks to make > it do > > what we needed. A framework that handles more of the > request/response > > plumbing for me is welcome. A framework where *maybe* I can use tools > that > > are WYSIWYG if I want is appealling after 5 years of hand-coding XML > > descriptor files that are gigantic. A framework that handles requests > and > > responses and doesn't push as far back into the business tier is > welcome > > to me. > > > > So I like the idea of JSF. Just like I like the idea of Tapestry and > even > > Ruby on Rails. I just wanted to know if you could write a JSF app > today > > and be reasonably sure that you could do easy validation on the > server, be > > relatively efficient in it and not run into major snafus with > application > > server differences. > > > > Preston > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > > > *************************************************************************** > Messages included in this e-mail and any of its attachments are those > of the author unless specifically stated to represent WorkCover > Queensland. The contents of this message are to be used for the intended > purpose only and are to be kept confidential at all times. > This message may contain privileged information directed only to the > intended addressee/s. Accidental receipt of this information should be > deleted promptly and the sender notified. > This e-mail has been scanned by Sophos for known viruses. > However, no warranty nor liability is implied in this respect. > > **************************************************************************** > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
