Dakota Jack wrote:
For my part, I have to disagree with Frank. JSF has been around forever and has no discernable traction. Perhaps that is the reason Craig is a little testy nowadays. I don't know about that.
I don't think it's fair to say it has no discernible traction. I *would* however agree that it hasn't gotten the traction that was hoped for. In either case, I for one am not sure at what point it is reasonable to completely dismiss something because it hasn't yet reached the top of the hill...
I know your a big fan of Spring Jack... I think it would have been unfortunate, as I know you would have, if after three months of it being released we said it hadn't gotten any traction yet and therefore should be dismissed :) Granted, JSF has been around a heck of a lot longer than 3 months, but that's precisely my point: 3 months vs. 3 years, what's the right cut-off? I don't know.
My feelings about JSF are no secret to anyone that has been on this list more than a few months. I'm not at all sold on it. I think it may well be the right *general* direction (the event-driven model), but I'm not a fan of the implementation. But, even having said that, I am in no way ready to write it off yet, even in light of how long it's been around without setting the world on fire, as we have been told many times it would. The same goes for Shale by extension. The whole marketing/Struts debate aside, Shale has every right to exist and develop, and it may wind up being JSF done right for all I know!
And, to be fair, a new JSF spec version is forthcoming. Let's be fair... it could well be that it will take off at that point. Just because it may or may not have had a slow start doesn't mean it won't ultimately succeed. You can count me right now as one of the pessimists, but you may have to count me as one of the wrong ones down the road :)
Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
