I think this is basically impossible. If this is possible, someone would have to explain how. You cannot have these two kinds of controllers actually working together as more than incompatible choices. This sort of thinking is what started the problem in Struts. If I were a WW2 buff, I would be choking and gagging.
On 3/16/06, James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What if <--- dangerous I know! > > What if there existed a JSF 1.2 implementation built with WW2 at the > core? > > I'm definitely not an expert with either JSF or WW2, however, I've > looked at both just enough to be convinced that it is possible. WW2 > has everything I already love about Struts and it even comes with > basic support for components, full Spring integration, etc, etc. > > Am I just crazy or what? Would that not let everyone have their cake > and eat it too? > > > -- > James Mitchell > EdgeTech, Inc. > http://edgetechservices.net/ > 678.910.8017 > Skype: jmitchtx > > > > > On Mar 16, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > > I believe Dakota is correct in this area. The problem is not > > with JSF itself, but the way the Struts team has divided itself > > into competing camps. JSF and Struts are competing because their > > approaches are orthogonal; it doesn't make any sense to do both > > unless you are on a migration path. > > > > When you have really great talent like Craig leave the Action > > Framework to contribute putting his total/almost total effort into > > Shale, it > > sends the signal TO ME (my opinion here) of "the boat is sinking" > > (Struts) and "the next big thing" (JSF) is on the horizon. Craig > > has put a ton of time and effort into Shale and I think that's > > awesome, but at the same time, I wish he would do the same to Struts. > > The Action Framework needs a lot of constant dedication to make it > > better, > > and there are ton of great contributions on board, but Craig appears > > to have an abundance of time and effort no one else has :-) and I wish > > that talent was retained for Struts. > > > > I think Struts does have a future, but I believe there needs > > to be honesty about the competition here. Struts DOES COMPETE against > > JSF and Shale, and putting these competitors into one mailing list > > will definitely bring out the passion on both sides. > > > > -- Paul > > > > --- Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I don't think JSF is polarizing. I think that the way it has been > >> pushed > >> into areas it does not belong is polarizing. There is absolutely > >> nothing > >> wrong with JSF, in my opinion, but there is something wrong with > >> the way its > >> advocates have strong-armed and misled people. That's what I have > >> disliked. > >> > >> On 3/15/06, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > >>> > >>>> Isn't it interesting how polarizing JSF seems to be? I don't know > >>>> about > >>>> you, but I talk to more people with a strong opinion either way > >>>> than most > >>>> other technologies. The only other one I can think of in the same > >>>> vein is > >>>> EJBs. Seems like you either love EJBs or you hate them, and the > >>>> same > >>>> seems, largely, to be true of JSF. There seems to be relatively > >>>> few of us > >>>> in the middle. > >>> > >>> I think it's largely because the JCP moved into a space that was > >>> already well-populated and people tend to be very skeptical of > >>> governing bodies. I think that the simple fact that JSF is a > >>> standard means there's a certain slice of people who will > >>> automatically refuse to accept it. I wonder how different the > >>> response would be if the exact same technology had been developed by > >>> ASF or FSF without the involvement of a standards body. Conversely, > >>> I wonder how different the response to Struts would've been if it > >>> had > >>> started out as a JSR. > >>> > >>> Developers seem to have the most difficult time with the "not > >>> created > >>> here" syndrome. At my last job I was on an architecture team for a > >>> large firm. We inherently held great skepticism for any framework > >>> handed to us that we didn't develop ourselves. And any framework we > >>> developed ourselves seemed to be completely rejected by everyone > >>> else. The portal software I'm working with right now really > >>> needs to > >>> be rewritten IMO. The only frameworks that seem to gain widespread > >>> acceptance are those that are developed in an open community rather > >>> than a closed one. Hmm. But there's always politics and egos > >>> involved. I strive to be the developer who can walk into any > >>> framework already in use and get work done without complaining about > >>> how broken everything is. I'm still a long way from achieving that > >>> goal. > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> - > >>> 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~ > >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > 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] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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~
