On 3/31/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dion Gillard wrote: > > On 3/31/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>I am sorry you took this personally, Dion. I meant nothing about you > >>personally. I am just saying that what you are advocating is well-known > >>in > >>the literature and in fact to be a problem. This is a main reason why > >>Struts 1.x is being abandoned. I am not going to take the time to show > >>you > >>something that you should be learning as a matter of course. I don't > owe > >>you that. So far as I know you may be the most wonderful person in the > >>world. Nothing personal is meant. Just read more. That is all I am > >>saying. Just because you don't see something does not mean I have the > >>obligation to teach you. I have told you the truth. Check it out. > > Dion, > > Finally, I was curious about this question and I just googled the > keywords: > > webwork struts testable > > as well as: webwork struts "unit test" > > and I get a fair number of hits. You might try similar searches. There > seem to be various people who think that a significant advantage of > Webwork is testability -- that actions are testable independently of the > web container.
Yep, I understand that it is *easier* to test WW actions. BTDT. That doesn't preclude you from writing 'decent tests' for your struts actions, and regardless, if the actions (ww or struts) call EJBs, use JNDI, JMS, JDBC et al, there's still further work to be done in both cases either mocking, arranging an in container test, or provide a 'test' spring configuration. Here is one blogger who talks about this stuff extensively. > > > http://www.pubbitch.org/blog/2004/10/10/every_time_you_use_struts_god_kills_another_kitten > > So, it seems that, at least there are many people who believe that > Webwork has a significant advantage in terms of being able to unit test > actions. > > OTOH, I personally don't have a sense of how important this aspect of > things was in the overall Struts vs. Webwork comparison that must have > been carried out in order to decide to ditch the Struts codebase in > favor of WW. Reading http://struts.apache.org/struts-action/roadmap.html , it seems a similar feature (no HTTP deps for actions) is being considered for Struts 1.3.x and beyond as experimental members. I wont buy into the 'ditch' at this point, as far as I can tell, Struts 1.2 and 1.3 are actively being developed. Most of the basis of my discourse on this -- that Webwork is better than > Struts -- has been simply taking the Struts people at their word. Why on > earth would they want to bring in Webwork as Struts Action 2 if it were > not significantly better than Struts Action 1 (i.e. plain old Struts)? > > At this point, strangely enough, certain people are asking *me* > insistently about all these issues as if I am the one who is supposed to > explain it. > > Anyway, there does seem to be an issue that Webwork has an advantage in > that the actions are unit testable independently of a web container. I > do not know how central this was to the decision to bring in Webwork. > There is terrible communication about this from the Struts developers > themselves. You'd think they would feel some onus to answer such > questions. If there are 22 Struts committers who had a say in the > decision to go with WW, you'd think they wouldn't all go into hiding > when questions are asked about this stuff. I see a fair amount of discussion about this stuff on the struts-dev lists, as they are currently 'development' decisions. Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > > > > > > > > > > Your original statement I replied to was: > > "For one, try writing decent tests." > > > > Believe it or not, I have done a lot of reading on Struts, been > developing > > with Struts for many years (I think it was 1999, in the 0.5 days) and > > understand what it takes to test Struts code very well. I've written > Struts > > and WebWork apps, and tests for both, many times. > > > > I'm not asking you to teach me anything. > > > > IMHO, you can write decent tests for Struts applications. And I'm happy > to > > agree to disagree with you. > > > > On 3/29/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>Ah, personal attack, thanks. > >>> > >>>I wouldn't want people to think that it's not possible to write decent > >>>tests > >>>with Struts 1.x. > >>> > >>>It is. > >>> > >>> > >>>On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>>Sigh ...... Dion, I am sorry, but I am not going to stoop this > >>>>low. Come > >>>>back later when you are grown up in this business. I hate to do this > >>> > >>>but > >>> > >>>>I > >>>>am not going to start at 101 with you. Someone else can. I am not > >>> > >>>going > >>> > >>>>to. You DON'T have a clue about these issues and don't even realize > >>> > >>>that > >>> > >>>>you are revealing that in spades. Please do yourself a favor and bow > >>> > >>>out > >>> > >>>>gracefully. > >>>> > >>>>On 3/29/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>Dion, you are obviously really green. Please read a bit and then > >>> > >>>come > >>> > >>>>>>back. Do you have any idea about architecture and design and > >>> > >>>testing > >>> > >>>>>>issues? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes, I do. Do you? > >>>>> > >>>>>So, the use of StrutsTestCase has an effect on architecture and > >>> > >>>design? > >>> > >>>>>Are you saying you can't test your code using it? I seem to do it > >>>>>reasonably > >>>>>easily. > >>>>> > >>>>>On 3/29/06, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>God, Joe! If you don't know what is wrong with Struts 1.xthen > >>>>> > >>>>>stand > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>aside. For one, try writing decent tests. Do you test your > >>> > >>>code? > >>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>So StrutsTestCase doesn't help you? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>On 3/29/06, Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Jonathon, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>You didn't answer Dion's question. You merely summarized > >> > >>that > >> > >>>>>Struts > >>>>> > >>>>>>>and > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>WebWork merged. > >>>>>>>>>You did not state any technical reasons that Struts 1.x is > >>>> > >>>>wrong. > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>The question was "Do you have a list of > >>>>>>>>>things that are technically wrong with Struts 1.x?" > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>You complain that people don't answer questions on this list > >>> > >>>and > >>> > >>>>>>look > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>what > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>you've just done. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>So do you have an answer? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>You should not use me as some kind of scapegoat to take out > >>>> > >>>>your > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>frustrations on. Take this stuff up with the Struts PMC, > >> > >>not > >> > >>>>>>>>>>with me. >Jonathan Revusky > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Very unbecoming of you Jon. Stop trying to change the > >> > >>subject > >> > >>>>and > >>>> > >>>>>>>answer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>the question.The question is: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>"Do you have a list of things that are technically wrong > >> > >>with > >> > >>>>>Struts > >>>>> > >>>>>>>1.x > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>?" > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Joe [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~ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>>http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ > >>>>>>>Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris > >>> > >>>is > >>> > >>>>>>afraid > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>-- > >>>>>>"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > >>>>> > >>>>>back." > >>>>> > >>>>>>~Dakota Jack~ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>-- > >>>>>http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ > >>>>>Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is > >>>> > >>>>afraid > >>>> > >>>>>of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-- > >>>>"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > >>> > >>>back." > >>> > >>>>~Dakota Jack~ > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ > >>>Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is > >> > >>afraid > >> > >>>of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its > back." > >>~Dakota Jack~ > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ > > Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is > afraid > > of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris
