<snip> On 3/15/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you believe that, nothing I can do will persuade you otherwise. I'll > just leave you with my personal belief ... MyFaces is very close to > knocking > off Struts as the second most popular Java-focused Apache project (after > Tomcat) by every measure *I* can see.
</snip> And what are those measures and what are the facts? <snip> And I talk to *lots* of developers > over time -- not just the few that pay attention to the Struts mailing > lists, and the overwhelming question I get *used* to be "which do I > choose, > Struts or JSF", and in the last three months it has turned into "what's my > migration strategy?" </snip> So do we have any examples of actual migrations to back this up? <snip> I see more books about JSF that were published in the three *months* after > 1.0 went final than in the three *years* after Struts 1.0 went final (and > that takes some doing -- Struts got a *huge* amount of coverage). </snip> What are the actual statistics, i.e. books? Could we have some hard data? <snip> I see job postings that used to be 80/20 "struts and everything else" start > to be 30/30/20 "struts/JSF/everything else". </snip> Really? I am not seeing this. So Struts and JSF are on an equal basis and the two combined have lost 20% of the market, not 22%? <snip> I see credible efforts from multiple parties to create JSF based component > libraries ... orders of magnitude more successful than JSP was ever able > to > get people to build tag libraries. </snip> I simply don't believe this. I would think we would see this. The JSP explosion in tag libraries was huge. I don't see this at all. <snip> I see better tool support for JSF than I see for Struts. Again, *months* > rather than years after the 1.0 release. </snip> JSF, first, is older than the hills. Don't hide that with the "1.0release". Second, JSF is for tools and for "challenged" programmers. That is the basic idea. Struts was not meant for tools. You of all people are well aware of both facts. <snip> And, I see a pretty significant backlash against Struts *because* of our > emphasis on backwards compatibility. Hopefully, SAF 2.0 (the result of > the > WW merger) can put that crap to rest -- but I've gotta tell you ... if > Struts developers hadn't been so passionate about backwards compatibility, > it would have *never* seen the early adopters that it saw. Tell me that > was > a bad thing. </snip> In my opinion, the fact that JSF was brought into Struts is the biggest reason people have little faith in the future. Migration is something that a framework can do easily, but not with this cachophony. <snip> But it's time to stop being an > ostrich, and understand that JSF is *already* here to stay. You seem to > be > one of the repeaters of the "JSF hasn't lived up to expectations" mantra. > *Whose* expectations are you talking about? Your perception of this > certainly does not match my experience over the last couple of years. </snip> Guess that is why Struts has pushed itself into the Shale community. Guess that is why there is Shale and MyFaces. I forgot that MyFaces even still exists. <snip> > The interesting message I am seeing is this -- > the internal architecture of the framework doesn't matter much to everyday > use of that framework ... the "shape" of the resulting application can be > basically identical in both paradigms. </snip> You are seeing your own message. The internal architecture of a framework like Spring is no different from the mess in present Struts? What a concept. That is simply outrageously false on many, many fronts, including performance, reliability, time for development, cost of maintenance, etc., etc., down through all the 50 ilities that are impacted by poor design. <snip> PPS: As you might imagine, the most popular question I get asked when I > speak at conferences related to web architectures is "what do I do now?" </snip> Well, anyone who is a professional asking this question is not someone I want working for me. I want to emphasize that I have no axe to grind about JSF itself. It is the incredibly goofy statements of the salesmen that irks me. JSF, like Visual Basic, has a place. That place is not in a serious website, however. In the long run, very qualified coders will replace the long list of people who need tool help. (Not tools like Eclipse, but tools like those associated with "helper" frameworks.) -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
