Struts Communication...

[Marky Goldstein <re...@rosa.com>]

Hi Wolfgang,

Maybe you are right and Core should be Core, and
the rest should be Extensions.

But if I look at the wegsite...
http://struts.apache.org/

I see that Core is one of many Subprojects on the
same level such as Shales, Tiles, etc.

If I read the text, it says...
"Apache Struts is a hotbed of activity. Struts Classic 1.3, Struts 
Shale, Struts Ti, Struts OverDrive. Why so many frameworks? How are they 
different? Why are they all called Struts? Which is the best choice for 
my next project? In this session, we step back and look at Struts 
through a wide-angle lens."

Hmm, yes, maybe the Struts movement should really discuss how
things get communicated...

Best regards,
Marky


Wolfgang Gehner wrote:

> That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be 
> understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE 
> strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's a 
> very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as 
> "Chain Of REsponsibility" :-)
> So my afterthought is: wouldn't it be cool if I could say "We're using 
> Struts CORE with the XXX extension"
> With CORE in capital letters. Or CORe? Either way, it would stand for: 
> Robust yet up to speed. Established yet pushing the envelope. Using 
> patterns yet being open. Also reflects the motivations for moving to 
> the new architecture.
>
> XXX could be Ti, Shale, some DAO, AJAX, RoR, whatever.
>
> Should have read ... 1.3 seems to be *imminent*...
>
> Wolfgang
>
> Marky Goldstein wrote:
>
>> As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that
>> there are many cells of people working on different editions
>> of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc.
>>
>> Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups
>> should come together to discuss if they have commons.
>>
>> Do you think that one day we will have THAT FRAMEWORK
>> or we still have to decide on many different frameworks? Hmm,
>> I don't think that a web application framework should be decided
>> on the requriements. I think there should be one good one for all
>> requirements that occur in 99% of all web applications.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marky
>>
>> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
>>
>>> I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
>>>
>>> I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects, 
>>> too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than 
>>> a minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from the new 
>>> flexibility this *major new feature* offers.
>>>
>>> I've also seen the great amount of work that goes into this release.
>>>
>>> To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0.
>>>
>>> Hell, if you are scared about that, call it at least 1.5, but 
>>> consider to give it the merit it deserves.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> I think it really deserves it. I know Struts versioning has always 
>>> been conservative, but I am not advocating to call it Struts 5 (like 
>>> Java 5), which might look too much like marketing. Here we are 
>>> talking about the real value this new version will provide.
>>>
>>> Everyone wonders if Struts is dying. I don't think it is. With 
>>> 1.3/"1.5" it gets a major push as far as extensibility is concerned 
>>> (which should be a key role of any <i>framework</i>. With tweaking 
>>> the struts chains, creating a "Struby" (Ruby on Struts) would 
>>> probably be the work of a fun long weekend. Talk about extending the 
>>> life of Struts, here it is.
>>>
>>> Humbly,  I think same goes for the label "Struts Classic", which I 
>>> personally gives it the image of old, which certainly 1.3 (1.5) does 
>>> not deserve. I think the label Struts Classic should be dropped. 
>>> Marketing uses "Classic" when they want to discourage people using 
>>> it, and rather buy something new. Or they blundered on something 
>>> new. Neither is the case here.
>>>
>>> Also, would anyone want to step forward and be vocal about what is 
>>> new with Struts 1.3 ("1.5") in discussions like
>>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37365 ?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Gehner
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
R.Ø.S.A.
Identity: Marky Goldstein
E-Mail: ready@rosa.com
Task: Managing Director, Product & Strategy

R.Ø.S.A. Creation. Technology. Intelligence. AG
Seefeldstrasse 231, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: +41 1 389 63 33
Fax: +41 1 389 63 30
URL: http://www.rosa.com/ 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Struts Communication...

[Wolfgang Gehner <ne...@infonoia.com>]

Yup, the true beauty of chains architecture and chain.xml is that it's 
soo easy to blend out stuff you don't need in a particular extension or 
configuration (and swap in other stuff), so you don't give anything away 
by having Core as Core "for everything".

Of course the Core code needs to be in some module in SVN. But if the 
core "module" is not core for pretty much everything it shouldn't have 
been called core anyway.

Wolfgang

Marky Goldstein wrote:

> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Maybe you are right and Core should be Core, and
> the rest should be Extensions.
>
> But if I look at the wegsite...
> http://struts.apache.org/
>
> I see that Core is one of many Subprojects on the
> same level such as Shales, Tiles, etc.
>
> If I read the text, it says...
> "Apache Struts is a hotbed of activity. Struts Classic 1.3, Struts 
> Shale, Struts Ti, Struts OverDrive. Why so many frameworks? How are 
> they different? Why are they all called Struts? Which is the best 
> choice for my next project? In this session, we step back and look at 
> Struts through a wide-angle lens."
>
> Hmm, yes, maybe the Struts movement should really discuss how
> things get communicated...
>
> Best regards,
> Marky
>
>
> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
>
>> That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be 
>> understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE 
>> strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's 
>> a very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as 
>> "Chain Of REsponsibility" :-)
>> So my afterthought is: wouldn't it be cool if I could say "We're 
>> using Struts CORE with the XXX extension"
>> With CORE in capital letters. Or CORe? Either way, it would stand 
>> for: Robust yet up to speed. Established yet pushing the envelope. 
>> Using patterns yet being open. Also reflects the motivations for 
>> moving to the new architecture.
>>
>> XXX could be Ti, Shale, some DAO, AJAX, RoR, whatever.
>>
>> Should have read ... 1.3 seems to be *imminent*...
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>> Marky Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that
>>> there are many cells of people working on different editions
>>> of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups
>>> should come together to discuss if they have commons.
>>>
>>> Do you think that one day we will have THAT FRAMEWORK
>>> or we still have to decide on many different frameworks? Hmm,
>>> I don't think that a web application framework should be decided
>>> on the requriements. I think there should be one good one for all
>>> requirements that occur in 99% of all web applications.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Marky
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
>>>>
>>>> I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large 
>>>> projects, too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a 
>>>> lot more than a minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from 
>>>> the new flexibility this *major new feature* offers.
>>>>
>>>> I've also seen the great amount of work that goes into this release.
>>>>
>>>> To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, if you are scared about that, call it at least 1.5, but 
>>>> consider to give it the merit it deserves.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> I think it really deserves it. I know Struts versioning has always 
>>>> been conservative, but I am not advocating to call it Struts 5 
>>>> (like Java 5), which might look too much like marketing. Here we 
>>>> are talking about the real value this new version will provide.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone wonders if Struts is dying. I don't think it is. With 
>>>> 1.3/"1.5" it gets a major push as far as extensibility is concerned 
>>>> (which should be a key role of any <i>framework</i>. With tweaking 
>>>> the struts chains, creating a "Struby" (Ruby on Struts) would 
>>>> probably be the work of a fun long weekend. Talk about extending 
>>>> the life of Struts, here it is.
>>>>
>>>> Humbly,  I think same goes for the label "Struts Classic", which I 
>>>> personally gives it the image of old, which certainly 1.3 (1.5) 
>>>> does not deserve. I think the label Struts Classic should be 
>>>> dropped. Marketing uses "Classic" when they want to discourage 
>>>> people using it, and rather buy something new. Or they blundered on 
>>>> something new. Neither is the case here.
>>>>
>>>> Also, would anyone want to step forward and be vocal about what is 
>>>> new with Struts 1.3 ("1.5") in discussions like
>>>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37365 ?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Gehner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org

Re: Struts Communication...

[Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>]

We do discuss everything, right here, right now :)

Having a separate menu block for Frameworks and Extensions makes
sense, so I updated the site home page.

Once Struts Classic is available as a discrete entity, we might have
another for "Distributions", since that's what Struts Classic is, a
distribution of a set of subprojects (like a Linux distribution).

-Ted.

On 11/1/05, Marky Goldstein <re...@rosa.com> wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Maybe you are right and Core should be Core, and
> the rest should be Extensions.
>
> But if I look at the wegsite...
> http://struts.apache.org/
>
> I see that Core is one of many Subprojects on the
> same level such as Shales, Tiles, etc.
>
> If I read the text, it says...
> "Apache Struts is a hotbed of activity. Struts Classic 1.3, Struts
> Shale, Struts Ti, Struts OverDrive. Why so many frameworks? How are they
> different? Why are they all called Struts? Which is the best choice for
> my next project? In this session, we step back and look at Struts
> through a wide-angle lens."
>
> Hmm, yes, maybe the Struts movement should really discuss how
> things get communicated...
>
> Best regards,
> Marky
>
>
> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
>
> > That's the thing, Ti, Shale are subprojects like Tiles, and should be
> > understood as such, which means keeping the naming of Struts CORE
> > strong. Here, the core has really evolved to a new version. And it's a
> > very strong core. Just comes to my mind that CORE could be read as
> > "Chain Of REsponsibility" :-)
> > So my afterthought is: wouldn't it be cool if I could say "We're using
> > Struts CORE with the XXX extension"
> > With CORE in capital letters. Or CORe? Either way, it would stand for:
> > Robust yet up to speed. Established yet pushing the envelope. Using
> > patterns yet being open. Also reflects the motivations for moving to
> > the new architecture.
> >
> > XXX could be Ti, Shale, some DAO, AJAX, RoR, whatever.
> >
> > Should have read ... 1.3 seems to be *imminent*...
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
> > Marky Goldstein wrote:
> >
> >> As an "outsider" the marketing of Struts currently tells me that
> >> there are many cells of people working on different editions
> >> of Struts... Ti, Shale, Classic, etc.
> >>
> >> Yes, I guess that is confusing, and yes, propably those groups
> >> should come together to discuss if they have commons.
> >>
> >> Do you think that one day we will have THAT FRAMEWORK
> >> or we still have to decide on many different frameworks? Hmm,
> >> I don't think that a web application framework should be decided
> >> on the requriements. I think there should be one good one for all
> >> requirements that occur in 99% of all web applications.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Marky
> >>
> >> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a humble suggestion, as 1.3 release seems to be eminent.
> >>>
> >>> I've worked with 1.3 dev since January this year, on large projects,
> >>> too, and I think that the new chains design is worth a lot more than
> >>> a minor point release. We are getting GREAT bang from the new
> >>> flexibility this *major new feature* offers.
> >>>
> >>> I've also seen the great amount of work that goes into this release.
> >>>
> >>> To me, 1.3 should be called 2.0.
> >>>
> >>> Hell, if you are scared about that, call it at least 1.5, but
> >>> consider to give it the merit it deserves.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> I think it really deserves it. I know Struts versioning has always
> >>> been conservative, but I am not advocating to call it Struts 5 (like
> >>> Java 5), which might look too much like marketing. Here we are
> >>> talking about the real value this new version will provide.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone wonders if Struts is dying. I don't think it is. With
> >>> 1.3/"1.5" it gets a major push as far as extensibility is concerned
> >>> (which should be a key role of any <i>framework</i>. With tweaking
> >>> the struts chains, creating a "Struby" (Ruby on Struts) would
> >>> probably be the work of a fun long weekend. Talk about extending the
> >>> life of Struts, here it is.
> >>>
> >>> Humbly,  I think same goes for the label "Struts Classic", which I
> >>> personally gives it the image of old, which certainly 1.3 (1.5) does
> >>> not deserve. I think the label Struts Classic should be dropped.
> >>> Marketing uses "Classic" when they want to discourage people using
> >>> it, and rather buy something new. Or they blundered on something
> >>> new. Neither is the case here.
> >>>
> >>> Also, would anyone want to step forward and be vocal about what is
> >>> new with Struts 1.3 ("1.5") in discussions like
> >>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37365 ?
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang Gehner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> R.Ø.S.A.
> Identity: Marky Goldstein
> E-Mail: ready@rosa.com
> Task: Managing Director, Product & Strategy
>
> R.Ø.S.A. Creation. Technology. Intelligence. AG
> Seefeldstrasse 231, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland
> Phone: +41 1 389 63 33
> Fax: +41 1 389 63 30
> URL: http://www.rosa.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>


--
HTH, Ted.
http://www.husted.com/poe/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org