I have no reservations about your sincerity, Patrick, and I am glad to find you at Struts. Welcome! However, I would be careful if I were you about being sanguine about your new companions. I hope things turn out as you have indicated.
On 12/16/05, Patrick Lightbody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. As an "outsider" to > Struts and someone who has spent 3 years living in the "WebWork > world", I only recently many of the Struts developers and community > this week at ApacheCon. Having been in a room talking about this very > issue with Ted, Don, Craig, Martin, Neil, Clinton, and others, I can > say without a doubt that everyone is on board with this vision of > Struts as a community and two parallel frameworks. > > More so, we are all in agreement that we will collaborate wherever > possible, including: > > - common set of Java 5 annotations > - similar style configuration tricks (auto-reloading, consistent use > of DTD or XML schema, etc) > - validation engine > - internationalization > - possibly some tags even > > I'd also like to add that whatever the history has been, today I see > Struts as a unique offering. In the web development space (regardless > of language), there are two schools of thoughts: > > - action frameworks: bind requests to methods in beans > - event/component frameworks: don't worry about URLs as much and bind to > events > > I think it is fair to say that marketplace of developers has not yet > decided that one of these is a clear "winner". Struts, as a community, > is uniquely positioned to offer both options and is best prepared for > the day when that winner is declared. We all agreed that when that day > comes, by working together in other areas (validation, i18n, config, > annotations, etc) not only will the code be easy to merge, but the > community will be too. No other web development community offers this. > > As someone who has said some pretty disparaging remarks about Struts > technolog and community in the part (I'll do the google search for > you: > http://blogs.opensymphony.com/plightbo/2003/10/webwork_docaday_struts_really.html) > , > I can comfortably say I made a big mistake in choosing to create a > divide but that I've learned from that mistake and that is why I am > here today. > > And I believe that everyone in the Struts community is also on board > to continue the grow the spirit of cooperation, not only between > Struts Action and WebWork, but between Struts Action and Struts Shale. > > Patrick > > On 12/16/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it is fair to say that many of us have made similar comments > over > > the past few months, and have every time been basically told that it is > > our problem we are not "getting it". Usually we've been told nicely, > but > > not always. That isn't the point though, The point is that this is not > a > > new complaint by any stretch, and it has previously been dismissed on > many > > occasions by more than one person. > > > > -- > > Frank W. Zammetti > > Founder and Chief Software Architect > > Omnytex Technologies > > http://www.omnytex.com > > AIM: fzammetti > > Yahoo: fzammetti > > MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Fri, December 16, 2005 10:37 am, Patrick Lightbody said: > > > This sounds familiar :) > > > > > > I definitely would recommend changing the slides and title of the > > > presentation. Just yesterday I ran in to this: > > > > > > > http://javasymposium.techtarget.com/html/det_descriptions.htm#McClanahanShale > > > > > > Changing the title to something like "Shale: the Struts Component > > > Framework" would certainly clear this up. We need to be firm and clear > > > on the idea that Struts has many sub-projects, and two major > > > frameworks: an Action framework and a Component framework. > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > On 12/16/05, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> With some people like Craig McClanahan delivering talks at > significant > > >> conferences entitled with contrary ideas like "Is Shale the next > > >> Struts", > > >> you might excuse people for thinking that this "subproject" ruse is > > >> baloney. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday and I have > read > > >> all > > >> about the Trojan Horse. > > >> > > >> On 12/15/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > By the way, the original decision to incorporate Shale as a > subproject > > >> > occurred nearly 11 months ago: > > >> > > > >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-user&m=110651419515521&w=2 > > >> > > > >> > -- Paul > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Craig > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > > >> back." > > >> ~Dakota Jack~ > > >> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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~
