I like your analogy, however I disagree with the following:
> Core Struts people are moving to JSF/Shale ...
That's not true for everyone. The whole reason Shale is not Struts
2.0 in the first place is that a majority of the Struts leadership
decided that JSF should not be the future direction for Struts. Some
people still have not bought into JSF and some probably never will.
For me, I wish I had the time to mess around with JSF/shale, but that
doesn't mean I am 'moving to JSF/Shale'. Several months ago I
thought I was going to be working on a JSF project, but it turned out
that we went with Struts 1.2.7 instead.
--
James Mitchell
EdgeTech, Inc.
http://edgetechservices.net/
678.910.8017
Skype: jmitchtx
On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Michael Jouravlev wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
