Alexandre Poitras wrote:
Stability : Relatively unchanging, permanent; firmly fixed or established,
Of course, it usually only refers to the framework API. It doesn't
have anything to do with improvements or not, changing is changing for
the best or the worst.
"There is nothing incompatible between being -->stable<-- and being
innovative and
-->changing<--" is totally contradictory according to your favorite dictionary.
Well, actually, there are concepts of *dynamic* stability -- for
example, the notion of an aircraft being aerodynamically stable. I'm not
an expert in that field so I am reluctant to take this analogy too far,
but obviously, the aircraft is moving, it is not stationary. The
stability in question is more or less that it doesn't go into an abrupt
nosedive and crash. But it is moving. And it's stable, at least in a
certain sense, at the same time.
In any case, in the context of this discussion, "stability" really only
makes sense within a framework of overall technical progress. If
development basically comes to a standstill, and there's no technical
progress, then you have stability in the most trivial sense, that
nothing happens.
This same stability could have been achieved by the javasoft team simply
by not improving the Java platform past the 1.1.3 level, say. To achieve
stability by simply not doing anything is hardly much of an achievement
to crow about.
In any case, there is a concept of dynamic stability. You seem to be
confusing the concept of something being stable with it being
stationary. In so doing, you have entered into a rather sterile semantic
game IMO.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, Alexandre, how are these contradictory? Oh, LOL, I see what you are
thinking, if I can guess. You think that code improvement and migration are
unstable. Unstable is when you cannot count on a product for the long run.
This means stability embraces change and improvement, keeping up with the
Jones. Look at the big picture.
Stability is important. That does not mean you don't improve. There is
nothing incompatible between being stable and being innovative and
changing. In fact, if a code base does not keep up, it is unstable. A code
base is not stable if you cannot count on it for the future.
On 3/30/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yesterday :
"The stability of a platform like Struts is a big deal"
Today :
"Backward compatibility is never a reason to trash a product. You go
through a process of deprecation."
On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have no idea, Alexandre, why you think this is a contradiction. Could
you
please point that out?
On 3/30/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You lack memory Dakota, here's what you just wrote yesterday :
"The hullabaloo, Larry, is about the stability of the platform with a
bunch
of committers who don't appear to be up to the job and who are not
willing
to look at what went wrong. The stability of a platform like Struts
is a
big deal. This is a time to decide to go with or to get off the
Struts
wagon. How the committers respond has a lot to do with this."
You just contradicted yourself... But you are so superior to us mere
mortals that I am probably wrong again.
On 3/30/06, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You
toadies to the process are the ones that always start this
crap. The
truth
is that you don't know shit. If you did, you would be all over
this
question. Backward compatibility is never a reason to trash a
product. You
go through a process of deprecation.
On 3/30/06, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't bother about him Bart. I said it and I will say it again,
he
is
a troll. I tried to have a constructive discussion with him
several
times. It always ends up in personal attacks (go read some books
and
come back...) but he is the one never backing up his claims. I
am
all
for freedom of speech and CONSRUCTIVE CRITICISM but I think
people
have been REALLY tolerant with him. I can't count how many times
he
bashed Craig freely or any other commiters. It sounds like
jalousy
to
me. Dakota, this list is owned by Apache and you are a guess
here.
It
is not an absolute right.
Honestly, I begin to think Shale should move to another place
because
the amount of noise on this list is terrible. I don't write a
lot on
this list but I do read it a lot and this noise is getting
really
out
of control. Thank to 2 guys who have decided Apache doesn't fit
their
point of view and therefore anybody who don't think the same
way are
wrong . Here's a clue : you can take the code, evolve it and
start
your own community then quite BUGGING US with your childish
fights
since you will be so successful.
By the way, for those who may believe those guys, Struts 1.xdidn't
not evolve as fast as WebWork for one reason : API Backward
compatibilit, something very important to frameworks. This is
one of
the reason this community is so huge. Is it that hard to
understand
?
For instance, it has been well known since a long time that
sending
an
HttpServletRequest's instance to actions was a bad idea and a
neutral
context object should have been used instead but it hasn't been
changed to keep the API consistant. Hence the need for a version
2.0
.
WebWork technically already gots it right but always lacked
(from
what
I heard) a big user community, something Struts has always
enjoyed
because of its commitment to backward compatibility. So both
frameworks win in this merge especially given the strong
competition
coming from components-oriented frameworks. Technical excellence
is
not the only success factor. Only idealists think this way.
On 3/30/06, Bart Busschots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dakota Jack 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?
This is an example of the kind of post this list could do
without.
The
above post basically boils down to:
"you disagree with me so you must be uneducated, go read up
some
and
then come talk with the big boys"
I'm sorry but that is just insulting and most un-helpful.
Jack,
please
explain your point of view so us mere
mortals can actually learn something rather than being all
smug
and
superior on people who dissagree with
you.
Thanks,
Bart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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~
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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~
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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~
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
