Ted, your logic is direct and understandable. I know you've expressed this same feedback before, but it doesn't address the concerns of those who are concerned with the Name of Struts. I know your focus is on the people, the problem solving, etc. (and thank you for it), but what is the NEED to call Shale, "Struts" Shale, if not for the market share? That's the core of the issue and I don't think a pure answer like "problem solving" is an effective answer.
As a few people have noted, there are suspicions that Shale is about bolstering the importance of JSF to the detriment of the Action framework. I find this logical and readily visible. Maybe there's some other great open-source JSF framework out there that's competing with Shale, but I don't know of any other Shale-look-a-likes: it seems like it is the ONLY controller out there that's really trying to assist JSF. (That's fine! By all means, develop it in joy... but under a different name.) And since JSF came out of the experience of Struts, I am telling you, it really looks like Shale is supposed to knock off the Action framework. I don't think I am seeing illusions here or crying wolf or making a frivolous point. I think the people who complain about the "Struts" of Shale have very substantial merit to their point: the "Struts" of Shale IS about marketing: Shale props JSF, JSF props Sun, and Sun gets a big win by gaining "mind-share" in the MVC marketplace.... if the JSF standard "wins" the marketplace, Struts Action will be olde school or "classic" :-) and the adoption rate will diminish heavily. I totally disagree this is about the pureness of community work; I am glad++ Rod Johnson said something similar because it validates++ my concern. -- Paul __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
