On 3/23/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In order to be able to offer something > reasonably state of the art, the Struts community is basically > abandoning the Struts 1.x codebase and inviting the Webwork people in. > The Webwork 2.2 codebase then gets rechristened "Struts Action Framework > 2". But what has happened is definitely a failure of the Struts people > to stay competitive technically.
You like to write a lot, but you don't like to read. You don't find searching for answer yourself quite entertaining too. I will try again to explain the possible reason for Struts->WebWork move, as *I* see it: Core Struts people are moving to JSF/Shale, leaving the original Struts Classic niche up for grabs. This niche could (and still can) be taken by a "next best thing in action frameworks" whatever it may be, WebWork or Stripes or Spring MVC or something else. In this case the public perception would have been that Struts lost the battle. Struts guys made a smart move bringing WebWork in as Struts 2.0. The name is preserved and all that is related to the name is preserved too, not just software but people as well. This way Struts originators and committers retain their respectable status, while WebWork guys get the market: "I was a Struts committer once" - "Oh, cool! I've heard that version 2.0 will be really a leap forward". Very, very nice deal for all interested parties. Committers work on new interesting stuff, releaving themselves from boring 1.x maintenance. Six years, are you kidding? After all, they work on a new product now, so it will be beneficial for the community too. WebWork guys get the recognition, the market and the influence. Struts Action users get new version of the framework. Who cares that it was called WebWork before? Struts Classic needs/needed a serious makeover anyway, so why not to take others' code instead? Do you care that Pontiac GTO is actually a Holden Monaro, which is heavily based on Opel Omega? GM did not have anything like it anyway, they killed Camaro/Firebird because it was a farm tractor not a sports car. Bringing in GTO was an answer to public demand for a new muscle car. Was this a reasonable choice? Um, for "true" Camaro aficionados, maybe not. For them, Camaro will probably be revived in couple of years. But software is not exactly like automotive industry anyway. GM does not give away GTO for free. Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
