On 3/15/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snipping] > > Compare the MailReader app as > > implemented with Struts and with Shale+JSF. > > Craig, can you help with the link to Shale Mailreader, could not find it.
Nightly builds of all the Shale based webapps are available as war files in the nightly builds site. http://cvs.apache.org/builds/struts/nightly/struts-shale/ Look for one of the shale-mailreader-YYYYMMDD.war builds. Sources are in the overall framework build. > Compare the (upcoming) > > implementation of the iBATIS JPetStore application (implemented with > Struts, > > but with a "dispatch actions" hack) > > Who's making it? iBatis guys? I am interested, I am fond of "dispatch > action hacks." Figured you might be :-). The starting point for this is the "JPetStore 5.0 Example Application" available at: http://ibatis.apache.org/javadownloads.html I'm not done with the conversion yet, but it ends up being much less interesting than I had expected -- pretty much 1:1 mechanical conversions. That, in turn, is the real message here ... people who believe that application developers (as opposed to framework geeks) will think that the difference in what *they* have to do is something really hard, is just not going to turn out to be the case. The only people that care whether its a front controller or a chain of responsibility or whatever is the framework-level person responsible for adding a new global feature. For the average developer working on an individual page, the differences are mere syntactic sugar, not fundamental learning principles. > * If you are starting a new project, you owe it to yourself to evaluate > the > > benefits a component > > oriented architecture can bring to your application. If you don't > know > > that those are, shame on you :-). > > I agree that a component framework has its benefits. But with upgrade > from Struts to JSF why not to upgrate the whole platform including OS? > JSF is a component framework. JSF is not the component framework. Please show me an alternative component framework (in the Java landscape) that has attracted anything close to the same level of attention. Note carefully what I am saying. Tapestry is cool technology (the fact that JSF is also cool doesn't negate that :-) -- but how many third party Tapestry component libraries can you find, versus third party JSF libraries? There are a few (see Tacos at sourceforge.net for an example), but is that a viable marketplace (yet)? Relevance of a component architecture is all about who else besides the framework vendors buy into the fundamental APIs and think it is worthwhile to produce interoperable components. There is no upgrade path from Struts to JSF, even JSP pages are > different. The fact that JSP is now regarded as "that crusty stuff we > brought with us to make show that JSF provides backward compatibility" > does not make JSF more appealing that other component frameworks. Oh > right, JSF *is* a standard. Talk to me in six months. Talk to me in a year. Guess who is going to be smiling about what happened :-). Michael. Craig
