<snip> On 4/20/06, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, we have. Here's a handy summary for future reference:
</snip> Translation: do not deign to bother Oz with this rubbish again. <snip> > The Apache Struts project continues to move that the same pace we > always have. We generally run 18 months to 24 months between release > series. The Struts 1.3.x series has already begun, and a 1.3.0 build > is available for testing. From the beginning, there were several teams > that started after us and issued a 1.0 release before Struts 1.0 came > out in June 2001. Other teams do move faster, but faster is not always > better. </snip> This is belied by the committers own acknowledgements on this list. <snip> We add committers on a regular basis. </snip> Yes, but not based on their contribution to Struts. Some like Gary never appeared on the Struts list prior to getting committer status. The entry in his case was that he was helping Craig advance his career through work on JSF. <snip> > > We do *not* consider other projects "competitors". We consideras not > ourselves colleagues who are trying to solve the same problem in > different ways, in search of better solutions. The Apache Struts > website links to several similar projects, like Wicket and Spring MVC, > and our FAQ encourages visitors to look for the solution that best > serves their own needs. The ASF alone has five web application > framework projects. In the data persistence area, we have four > products now, and a fifth is in the Incubator. For us, it's not about > "competition", it's about a community of developers working together > to find different ways to solve our own problems. </snip> This too is just baloney. Follow Craig's embarassing attempts to keep JSF and Shale afloat and his attacks on Struts itself. <snip> > For Apache Struts 2.0, we've had three formal proposals. One of those > turned in to a subproject, Shale (which is nearing a stable release). </snip> Calling this a Struts proposal shows how twisted this supposed logic is. This code base is an undisguised attempt to kill Struts. <snip> > Another, Ti, evolved into a merger with one of our colleague projects, > WebWork. As we worked on Ti, which was based on XWork, the lead > WebWork committers mentioned that they would like to join forces with > another framework. At first, Don and I thought that "joining forces" > meant that we would start a new project, but Patrick and Jason wanted > to join Apache Struts instead. So that's the path we followed. We are > not interested in reinventing the wheel. All we want to do is create > and maintain the frameworks that we want to use to build our own > applications. </snip> I get a kick out of this "community". The community here is "Don and I" and "Patrick and Jason" . LOL WHAT COMMUNITY? This, of course, was all happening off the list. Inventing the wheel is nothing, by the way. Children playing reinvent the wheel. Inventing the axel and how it works with the wheel is the issue. <snip> > We do have committers who remain interested in the Struts Action 1.x > codebase. We have 1.x applications in production, just like everyone > else. Most of these applications would not be migrated to Action 2, > but would be maintained in their current form. (I have a stable > application that is based on Struts 1.0, and it works just fine, thank > you very much.) Of course, like anyone else with Action 1.x > applications, the committers are going to be interested in new > extensions, like Strecks, as well as proposals and patches as to how > to continue evolving the 1.x codebase. Anyone actually following > Struts 1.x development knows that we do accept and apply patches on a > regular basis. </snip> This is so far from reality as to be unimaginable from a person supposedly in the know. <snip> > In the field, I find that many teams have standardized on Struts 1.1, > and have no wish to change. Struts 1.1 is solving their problems, and > until they have new problems, they are happy campers. Personally, I > don't believe that most teams don't want to update their web > application more than once every two years. It was not our intention > to move slowly, but, in retrospect, I believe that a calm and steady > pace is one reason Struts 1.x remains the most popular web application > framework for Java. </snip> Any data or is this just more of the "I believe" and "I pronounce" stuff. Data and evidence would really be a welcome breeze. <snip> > New and improved extensions to Action 1 continue to appear regularly. > In *2006* alone, we've seen the release of Strecks, JSP Control Tags, > Sprout, Spring Web Flow, DWR, Calyxo, FormDef, and Java Web Parts. > There are dozens of books and literally hundreds of articles available > to help people get started with Action 1 or improve the application > they already have. </snip> What does this have to do with anything? So, other communities are actually doing things? You want credit for that? You kill the code and want credit? Ted, I have thought over the years that you were basically a good guy. When you got to Struts it was just a matter of being willing to do something and you were made committer. I think you have to answer certain questions about committers and the way the community grows honestly to yourself. I am going to ask you straight up one time and see if you have the man-up to answer. Why is Frank not a committer? Why don't you propose he have that status? Until you answer that, I cannot take you seriously. Frank and I are not friends. He in fact is not too fond of me at all. I think the fact that Frank and Phil Zoio are not offered committer status says it all. If Gary gets offered committer status for work on another platform, why would Phil not be offered committer status on Struts, since he works in that area. And, why would Frank not be offered committer status, other than he does not buy your blowhard, fatuous, pseudo-philosophical comments about community and has been bold enough to call Craig on his bull-oney. Why don't you change that "community", in Struts, which is NOT like the other Apache groups, to "us"? -- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~
