On 3/14/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I totally agree with Rod Johnson! I don't know why so many people > are quiet about this topic when the truth of Shale is obvious > to anyone who paid attention to these boards, and the number of > commits that go into Shale vs. Struts. I've voiced this before, > but I usually don't get good reception. I am truly happy WebWork > is becoming Struts 2.0 because the action framework, imo, is > the only product that deserves the name "Struts" -- and Shale > should leave the repository for its own pastures. I can't escape > my perception of what Shale is (marketing campaign for JSF) and > so I don't think I'll be leaving my opinion behind soon.
Paul, do you really feel like pulling out and laundering this dirty stuff again? Well, here you are. Commits represent what is interesting to the people who are not like other people. How you can blame them, this is o-p-e-n s-o-u-r-c-e. You did not pay for Struts code nor for support, did you? After Shale get momentum, it will bail out from parent's nest, then brave volounteers like you will be needed to support legacy boring stuff. Shale under Struts umbrella? From a Struts user's view, Apache->Jakarta has been replaced with Apache->Struts. No lemmings have been hurt in the process. WebWork becoming Struts taketh away universally likeable "Struts sucks" motto, but Shale giveth something in return. It should be real fun for an outsider of making sense between Struts 1.x "Classic", Struts 2.0 "Shale", Struts 2.0 "Titanium", Struts 2.0 "I hate bees" and Struts 2.0 "Le Chuck"... er... "WebWork 2". Pick yer poison! Michael J. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
