You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com> on 2004/10/06 16:58:33 UTC
An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
Folks,
I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
tabs, navigation, help, etc..
Why bother you say? I've found that in a corporate environment with
large teams that it's hard to keep applications structured and without
structure development costs go up. L&F and application flow guidelines
are okay, but they are typically expensive to enforce. It seems to me
that the plugin structure of eclipse, and emacs before it, go a long
way in providing core services to developers while at the same time
enforcing structure.
Anyone know a WebApp framework that does what I've described? Anyone
else seen this problem or am I alone in this concern?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
Posted by Emmanouil Batsis <Em...@eurodyn.com>.
Hi Rob,
Rob Evans wrote:
>[...]
>Anyone know a WebApp framework that does what I've described? Anyone
>else seen this problem or am I alone in this concern?
>
You may want to check out Matt Raible's Appfuse. It's pretty cool, but
when I tried it, i quit too quick cause it seemed too tied up with
Tomcat to me.
hth,
Manos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
Fundamentally coding changes, I think, refect human needs as much as
technical needs. Even good old procedural programming, which many
college computer science advocates cannot let go of, had, I think, as
its main difficulty the inability of a community to effectively code
with it. So, many ostensibly pure theoretical issues, such as data
encapsulation, are really attempts to save us from inadvertent (or
advertent?) human limitations. I am grateful for Struts and the
community of users and developers. Most of the people on here I find
more than personally and professionally acceptable, including those that
are constantly carping at me with non-Struts related issues which
sometimes are so tangential to anything that I am amazed they could
care, and even admirable. I do think that we have to acknowledge that
at root the issues we are dealing with are not unrelated to egos and we
/necessarily /have them in Struts too. I am not against ego. I am for
directing it with mindful design decisions.
I too think the changes planned for Struts are significant.
Michael McGrady
Matt Bathje wrote:
> http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
> http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsJericho
>
> Seem like pretty significant potential changes to me. I think the
> problem is that the way struts is currently proposed to change is not
> the way that you (and some others) want it to. This is why you must
> stop talking about it and start doing it in my opinion.
>
> Even the proposed struts 2.0 stuff may not happen soon, as some of the
> committers are happy as it is and/or moved on and/or too busy.
> (Quoting Ted Husted..."unless some young turk comes along and cranks
> out a working codebase over a holiday weekend")
>
> If you want your prpopsal to remain struts, setup a wiki whiteboard
> for a while to get ideas, then code it and submit it to contrib like
> was done with the Jericho idea. It may take off that way and become
> struts 2.0, you never know.
>
> I don't think I am (or anybody else is) being sensitive to CHANGING
> struts. I think the problem is (and no offense intended here) that you
> come off extremely abrasive in your emails, and we are sensitive to
> that. Your phrasing of "without ego in the core" came off as extremely
> confrontational on a personal level. That is what I took offense to.
> Change struts all you want though, make it better, make it smaller,
> make it make me dinner. That I am not sensitive to at all. I think
> most everybody in the community would agree.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Michael McGrady wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your ideas, Matt. Some thoughts on this, relating the
>> personal issues as much to Struts as possible, follow:
>>
>>
>> The subtitle of "eXtreme Programming eXplained" is "EMBRACE CHANGE"
>> by Kent Beck. This is all I am saying. Struts as it looks to v3.0
>> should embrace change as potential, which will increase, not
>> decrease, the community. This means, to me, embrace the possibility
>> of change. This means, to me, components and whittling things that
>> are UNchangeable down rather than up. If you build dependency into a
>> core, you build ego there as well. That is all I am saying. I hope
>> that is considered to be a constructive point. If not, why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> This has been a generic point about scientific and professional
>> community development at least since the 1970s. This has nothing to
>> do with any Struts committers or users in particular, although Struts
>> is not immune to the process which the issues address. I am
>> thinking, for example, in addition to the related movements in
>> programming and computer science about books like Kuhn's "The Sources
>> of Scientific Revolution" and the Popperian (Karl Popper) idea of
>> falsification as a root or core idea in intellectual and professional
>> development.
>>
>>
>> I really cannot believe how sensitive people on this list are to this
>> sort of thing. I really have no interest in these personal issues.
>> I do think that when people take comments about core issues to be
>> personal, then that is not my problem. I mean, do people read Freud
>> and take his comments about sexuality personally? I don't think so.
>> The core issues in programming development have human issues in
>> them. So, when we talk about component development and kernels and
>> so on, there are human issues. This includes ego. This does not
>> mean I am saying anything about the ego of Struts developers. I am
>> not. I am saying that dependency at the core will encourage personal
>> rather than Struts oriented commentary and goals. That is a point
>> about software development.
>>
>>
>> I too believe in doing rather than talking. I have a lot of code
>> that does what I am talking about. You know, I assume, about the
>> coding I have done on buttons. At this point, however, I am more
>> interested in thinking about it. Again, measure twice, cut once.
>> However, I am not a "committee" type guy either and I acknowledge
>> that you can talk something to death. I do think that the breadth of
>> my knowledge is probably less than needed to make great decisions
>> about a core like this. I do think that I personally would need the
>> input of more knowledge and experience than I have. But, I love the
>> idea and would work on it.
>>
>>
>> I also love Struts and have no issues with the people. If they have
>> issues, and some do, that is not my business.
>>
>> Michael McGrady
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: [OT] Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Matt Bathje <mp...@ntsource.com>.
http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsJericho
Seem like pretty significant potential changes to me. I think the
problem is that the way struts is currently proposed to change is not
the way that you (and some others) want it to. This is why you must stop
talking about it and start doing it in my opinion.
Even the proposed struts 2.0 stuff may not happen soon, as some of the
committers are happy as it is and/or moved on and/or too busy. (Quoting
Ted Husted..."unless some young turk comes along and cranks out a
working codebase over a holiday weekend")
If you want your prpopsal to remain struts, setup a wiki whiteboard for
a while to get ideas, then code it and submit it to contrib like was
done with the Jericho idea. It may take off that way and become struts
2.0, you never know.
I don't think I am (or anybody else is) being sensitive to CHANGING
struts. I think the problem is (and no offense intended here) that you
come off extremely abrasive in your emails, and we are sensitive to
that. Your phrasing of "without ego in the core" came off as extremely
confrontational on a personal level. That is what I took offense to.
Change struts all you want though, make it better, make it smaller, make
it make me dinner. That I am not sensitive to at all. I think most
everybody in the community would agree.
Matt
Michael McGrady wrote:
> Thanks for your ideas, Matt. Some thoughts on this, relating the
> personal issues as much to Struts as possible, follow:
>
>
> The subtitle of "eXtreme Programming eXplained" is "EMBRACE CHANGE" by
> Kent Beck. This is all I am saying. Struts as it looks to v3.0 should
> embrace change as potential, which will increase, not decrease, the
> community. This means, to me, embrace the possibility of change. This
> means, to me, components and whittling things that are UNchangeable down
> rather than up. If you build dependency into a core, you build ego
> there as well. That is all I am saying. I hope that is considered to
> be a constructive point. If not, why not?
>
>
>
> This has been a generic point about scientific and professional
> community development at least since the 1970s. This has nothing to do
> with any Struts committers or users in particular, although Struts is
> not immune to the process which the issues address. I am thinking, for
> example, in addition to the related movements in programming and
> computer science about books like Kuhn's "The Sources of Scientific
> Revolution" and the Popperian (Karl Popper) idea of falsification as a
> root or core idea in intellectual and professional development.
>
>
> I really cannot believe how sensitive people on this list are to this
> sort of thing. I really have no interest in these personal issues. I
> do think that when people take comments about core issues to be
> personal, then that is not my problem. I mean, do people read Freud and
> take his comments about sexuality personally? I don't think so. The
> core issues in programming development have human issues in them. So,
> when we talk about component development and kernels and so on, there
> are human issues. This includes ego. This does not mean I am saying
> anything about the ego of Struts developers. I am not. I am saying
> that dependency at the core will encourage personal rather than Struts
> oriented commentary and goals. That is a point about software development.
>
>
> I too believe in doing rather than talking. I have a lot of code that
> does what I am talking about. You know, I assume, about the coding I
> have done on buttons. At this point, however, I am more interested in
> thinking about it. Again, measure twice, cut once. However, I am not a
> "committee" type guy either and I acknowledge that you can talk
> something to death. I do think that the breadth of my knowledge is
> probably less than needed to make great decisions about a core like
> this. I do think that I personally would need the input of more
> knowledge and experience than I have. But, I love the idea and would
> work on it.
>
>
> I also love Struts and have no issues with the people. If they have
> issues, and some do, that is not my business.
>
> Michael McGrady
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
Thanks for your ideas, Matt. Some thoughts on this, relating the
personal issues as much to Struts as possible, follow:
The subtitle of "eXtreme Programming eXplained" is "EMBRACE CHANGE" by
Kent Beck. This is all I am saying. Struts as it looks to v3.0 should
embrace change as potential, which will increase, not decrease, the
community. This means, to me, embrace the possibility of change. This
means, to me, components and whittling things that are UNchangeable down
rather than up. If you build dependency into a core, you build ego
there as well. That is all I am saying. I hope that is considered to
be a constructive point. If not, why not?
This has been a generic point about scientific and professional
community development at least since the 1970s. This has nothing to do
with any Struts committers or users in particular, although Struts is
not immune to the process which the issues address. I am thinking, for
example, in addition to the related movements in programming and
computer science about books like Kuhn's "The Sources of Scientific
Revolution" and the Popperian (Karl Popper) idea of falsification as a
root or core idea in intellectual and professional development.
I really cannot believe how sensitive people on this list are to this
sort of thing. I really have no interest in these personal issues. I
do think that when people take comments about core issues to be
personal, then that is not my problem. I mean, do people read Freud and
take his comments about sexuality personally? I don't think so. The
core issues in programming development have human issues in them. So,
when we talk about component development and kernels and so on, there
are human issues. This includes ego. This does not mean I am saying
anything about the ego of Struts developers. I am not. I am saying
that dependency at the core will encourage personal rather than Struts
oriented commentary and goals. That is a point about software development.
I too believe in doing rather than talking. I have a lot of code that
does what I am talking about. You know, I assume, about the coding I
have done on buttons. At this point, however, I am more interested in
thinking about it. Again, measure twice, cut once. However, I am not a
"committee" type guy either and I acknowledge that you can talk
something to death. I do think that the breadth of my knowledge is
probably less than needed to make great decisions about a core like
this. I do think that I personally would need the input of more
knowledge and experience than I have. But, I love the idea and would
work on it.
I also love Struts and have no issues with the people. If they have
issues, and some do, that is not my business.
Michael McGrady
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
[OT] Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Matt Bathje <mp...@ntsource.com>.
Michael -
I would have to say...get working. It is pretty obvious from this and
the dev list that you are very unhappy with struts and its developers.
While struts does some of what you want, it is very lacking for you. I
think it is also obvious that your view of what struts should be does
not coincide with most of the struts developers or users, and would most
likely not become Struts v3.0.
Just submitting a proposal of this nature will go nowhere, (If my
knowledge of open source history is any good...) so don't just submit a
proposal. Sit down and work on an implementation of what you propose.
Put it up on sourceforge. Advertise it here (with an appropriate OT
label of course). If it is any good people WILL start using it, and WILL
start helping out with it. If it is good enough, it could make struts
obsolete as people start using your framework instead, which nobody
(including the struts committers...) would have a problem with. If it is
not any good they won't, but you will have a start on what you are
looking for at least.
Your initial crack at the project may not even have to be any good, look
at Linux 0.1. Without some sort of code to go on though, nobody will
probably ever take this up...this is a proposal that scratches YOUR
specific itch, so you have to be the impetus behind it.
If you just submit the proposal, or if you try to build a team or get a
committee together to discuss it or whatever this will go nowhere. Open
source projects that do these administrative type things before they
have any code are doomed to failure in my opinion, unless they have some
big blue backing ;) The ultimate example of this in my opinion is the
"Freedows" project of a few years back...but that is getting off track.
Anyways, this is the way I see it: You can talk all you want, and malign
struts and its developers all you want, but until you start implementing
what you want, nothing will happen.
Matt
p.s. I kind of hinted at this above, but I am kind of offended by the
"build a framework without ego in the core" comment in your proposal. It
seems to me that it was a personal attack on the struts committers and
how they drive the development. Just because the Struts developers do
not agree with your views sometimes, it does not mean the project is ego
driven. I have found the committers and the user/dev lists to be some of
the best, most helpful, least ego driven people in the open source
community. I can honestly say that I have never seen the "power" of
being a committer go to anybody's head.
Michael McGrady wrote:
> I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
>
> I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
> this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
> resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
> what the problem is.
>
> Right now Struts includes way too much application specific coding in
> the core. With a pretty concerted team effort it could be cleaned up,
> but with 1.3 on the way, that does not seem to be wise at the moment.
> With Struts 1.2 the problem seems to be increasing rather than
> decreasing. I really think there is a failure to understand the
> problem. I am not too effective at advocating this, because I don't
> have the time to assuage feelings around these issues.
>
> With Struts 1.3 coming along, I have just bided my time and kept a copy
> of Struts to consider starting an offshoot that makes the core the core
> and the rest modular with plugins and extensibility. This might not be
> too hard, because the main thing is removing dependencies.
>
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
>
> If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-date
> modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs Halloway's
> "Component Development for the Java Program", keeping only a real kernel
> as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge. I bet we could even
> recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he has gone elsewhere for the
> majority of his time right now. I don't think this presently exists. I
> do think that it would "sell" like wildfire to users. This would allow
> the user, in effect, to become automatic developers through their
> plugins and extensions. This would build a framework without ego in the
> core.
>
> Michael McGrady
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic
>> as you
>> can get.
>>
>>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
>>> WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
>>> contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
>>> tabs, navigation, help, etc..
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Kris Schneider <kr...@dotech.com>.
I certainly don't know enough about it to point you at its various pieces and
say, "here's just what you need" (partly because I'm not crystal clear on what
your requirements are). It was mainly just a Pavlovian reaction to discussions
about web component frameworks and designing with IDEs in mind, etc.
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/javaserverfaces/
Based on what it sounds like you're asking for, I'd say it's worth your time to
investigate the space of Java standards to make sure something useful doesn't
already exist.
Quoting Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:01:15 -0400, Kris Schneider <kr...@dotech.com> wrote:
> > Just to make sure the bases are covered, have you investigated JSF and
> found it
> > lacking?
>
> I've not. Do you know much about it? I was under the impression that
> its purpose in life was to provided support for UI widget development.
>
> [snip]
--
Kris Schneider <ma...@dotech.com>
D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:01:15 -0400, Kris Schneider <kr...@dotech.com> wrote:
> Just to make sure the bases are covered, have you investigated JSF and found it
> lacking?
I've not. Do you know much about it? I was under the impression that
its purpose in life was to provided support for UI widget development.
[snip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Kris Schneider <kr...@dotech.com>.
Just to make sure the bases are covered, have you investigated JSF and found it
lacking?
Quoting Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>:
> Comments inline
>
>
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady
> <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com> wrote:
> > I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
> >
> > I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
> > this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
> > resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
> > what the problem is.
> >
> > Right now Struts includes way too much application specific coding in
> > the core. With a pretty concerted team effort it could be cleaned up,
> > but with 1.3 on the way, that does not seem to be wise at the moment.
> > With Struts 1.2 the problem seems to be increasing rather than
> > decreasing. I really think there is a failure to understand the
> > problem.
>
> Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
> having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
> better than just having several webapps that use the same UI libraries
> and abide by the same standards? From experience, I know that this has
> not worked well for large teams, but I'm not I can clearly articulate
> why, yet.
>
> > I am not too effective at advocating this, because I don't
> > have the time to assuage feelings around these issues.
>
> When it comes to architecture and design, feelings suck. ;-)
>
> >
> > With Struts 1.3 coming along, I have just bided my time and kept a copy
> > of Struts to consider starting an offshoot that makes the core the core
> > and the rest modular with plugins and extensibility. This might not be
> > too hard, because the main thing is removing dependencies.
> >
> > PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
> >
> > If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> > maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-date
> > modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs Halloway's
> > "Component Development for the Java Program", keeping only a real kernel
> > as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge. I bet we could even
> > recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he has gone elsewhere for the
> > majority of his time right now. I don't think this presently exists. I
> > do think that it would "sell" like wildfire to users. This would allow
> > the user, in effect, to become automatic developers through their
> > plugins and extensions. This would build a framework without ego in the
> > core.
>
> I appreciate your interest and I'm flattered that you think this is a
> good idea. Before we get to far down the road I'd like to surface more
> of the problems and understand what it is we're talking about a little
> more.
>
> >
> > Michael McGrady
> >
> > James Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > >Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as
> you
> > >can get.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >>Folks,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
> > >>WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
> > >>contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
> > >>tabs, navigation, help, etc..
--
Kris Schneider <ma...@dotech.com>
D.O.Tech <http://www.dotech.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
Rob Evans wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:59:26 -0700, Michael McGrady
><mi...@michaelmcgrady.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rob Evans wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Could be. I for o
>>>
>It sounds like we are on the same page regarding the nature of the
>solution i.e. we're after something that looks like components. I'm
>sure Craig and Halloway will have something to say about this if you
>can get their attention.
>
>
I hope so. I have to admit that I cannot approach the horsepower they
would bring to a discussion like this. I am convinced, however, that
the smaller the core and the more extensible the whole design, the
better things are. Getting the kernel right, however, and getting a
design for growth right, is the key. I am convinced myself that Struts
has the essential i
>I'm not sure that in the end a full blown component model for webapp
>is necessary. Do we really need to start/stop/reload webapp
>contributions? Is it even possible to reload a contribution without
>bouncing the webapp. Maybe, I don't know.
>
Yes, it is. There are requirements. (1) clients must not reference the
type that will be dynamically reloaded, if they do, either they will
implicity load the classes with their class loader or fail to load the
classes at all, and these options require shutting down the client
(which is what we want to avoid with this design decision); (2) clients
can never use a reference to an implementation type, but must always
reference a base class or an interface type (there is no way to avoid
shutting down the client if you want to change the interface or the base
class that is referenced, but this would require the client to be
rewritten anyway, so there is no real penalty); (3) the implementation
must be able to find the same version of the interface that the client
is using, or, in other words, the implementation's classloader must
delegate to the client's classloader (easily done by having clients
loaded with the system classloader). New implementations can use old
implemenations as a template, thereby maintaining state. This has two
requirements. (A) the client must make the state of the original object
available to factory class that serves the implementations so that the
new version can be correctly instantiated; (B) the client must drop all
references to the old version to drop the old version and to use the new
one (easily done by using the same variable), which Halloway shows as a
single line of code in his example: "pt = PointFactory.createPoint(pt);".
>Most of the light weight
>containers don't bother with hotdeployment and instead focus on the
>IOC/Dependancy Injection. Perhaps, this would be a good place to
>start?
>
>
The focus on IoC or Dependency Injection is perfect, I think
(http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html). My driving
philosophy is this: don't create a single dependency that is not
necessary. So, for example, if possible, the kernel should provide for
development in different flavors of Dependency Injection. I would tend
to favor the interface flavor. But, there are reasons to do things
differently.
>I'm tempted to send an email to one of the eclipse lists and see what
>they think.
>
>
Sounds good.
Michael McGrady
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:59:26 -0700, Michael McGrady
<mi...@michaelmcgrady.com> wrote:
> Rob Evans wrote:
>
> >Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
> >having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
> >better than just having several webapps that use the same UI libraries
> >and abide by the same standards? From experience, I know that this has
> >not worked well for large teams, but I'm not I can clearly articulate
> >why, yet.
> >
> >
> I agree totally. Measure twice, cut once. This may take ten measures.
>
> >I appreciate your interest and I'm flattered that you think this is a
> >good idea. Before we get to far down the road I'd like to surface more
> >of the problems and understand what it is we're talking about a little
> >more.
> >
>
> I could not agree, again, more. In the larger picture, you have to make
> sure your plans include eventual integration with IDEs. However, the
> biggest thing with component programming, I think, is to promote reuse
> by promoting the survival of the fittest plugin, which means creating a
> structure where anyone can plug in as deeply as can possibly be built
> into the struture. I do think that Struts' basic, core, architecture is
> a good, excellent, idea for a kernel. I am sure that Craig would have
> some thoughts about how he might do something different, if anything, at
> the core. If some direction from people with a larger perspective (like
> Craig and the other brigher lights in this area) were to be applied to a
> sort of online discussion of a wish list for a component framework core,
> that would be great. I would especially be interested myself in what
> Halloway would have to say. I think I am going to try and tweak his
> interest enough to get his thoughts on your notion.
It sounds like we are on the same page regarding the nature of the
solution i.e. we're after something that looks like components. I'm
sure Craig and Halloway will have something to say about this if you
can get their attention.
I'm not sure that in the end a full blown component model for webapp
is necessary. Do we really need to start/stop/reload webapp
contributions? Is it even possible to reload a contribution without
bouncing the webapp. Maybe, I don't know. Most of the light weight
containers don't bother with hotdeployment and instead focus on the
IOC/Dependancy Injection. Perhaps, this would be a good place to
start?
I'm tempted to send an email to one of the eclipse lists and see what
they think.
>
>
> Michael McGrady
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
Rob Evans wrote:
>Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
>having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
>better than just having several webapps that use the same UI libraries
>and abide by the same standards? From experience, I know that this has
>not worked well for large teams, but I'm not I can clearly articulate
>why, yet.
>
>
I agree totally. Measure twice, cut once. This may take ten measures.
>I appreciate your interest and I'm flattered that you think this is a
>good idea. Before we get to far down the road I'd like to surface more
>of the problems and understand what it is we're talking about a little
>more.
>
I could not agree, again, more. In the larger picture, you have to make
sure your plans include eventual integration with IDEs. However, the
biggest thing with component programming, I think, is to promote reuse
by promoting the survival of the fittest plugin, which means creating a
structure where anyone can plug in as deeply as can possibly be built
into the struture. I do think that Struts' basic, core, architecture is
a good, excellent, idea for a kernel. I am sure that Craig would have
some thoughts about how he might do something different, if anything, at
the core. If some direction from people with a larger perspective (like
Craig and the other brigher lights in this area) were to be applied to a
sort of online discussion of a wish list for a component framework core,
that would be great. I would especially be interested myself in what
Halloway would have to say. I think I am going to try and tweak his
interest enough to get his thoughts on your notion.
Michael McGrady
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>.
Comments inline
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady
<mi...@michaelmcgrady.com> wrote:
> I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
>
> I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
> this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
> resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
> what the problem is.
>
> Right now Struts includes way too much application specific coding in
> the core. With a pretty concerted team effort it could be cleaned up,
> but with 1.3 on the way, that does not seem to be wise at the moment.
> With Struts 1.2 the problem seems to be increasing rather than
> decreasing. I really think there is a failure to understand the
> problem.
Could be. I for one am still trying to nail down the issues. Why is
having a single WebApp that utilizes Inversion of Control and plugins
better than just having several webapps that use the same UI libraries
and abide by the same standards? From experience, I know that this has
not worked well for large teams, but I'm not I can clearly articulate
why, yet.
> I am not too effective at advocating this, because I don't
> have the time to assuage feelings around these issues.
When it comes to architecture and design, feelings suck. ;-)
>
> With Struts 1.3 coming along, I have just bided my time and kept a copy
> of Struts to consider starting an offshoot that makes the core the core
> and the rest modular with plugins and extensibility. This might not be
> too hard, because the main thing is removing dependencies.
>
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
> If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-date
> modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs Halloway's
> "Component Development for the Java Program", keeping only a real kernel
> as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge. I bet we could even
> recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he has gone elsewhere for the
> majority of his time right now. I don't think this presently exists. I
> do think that it would "sell" like wildfire to users. This would allow
> the user, in effect, to become automatic developers through their
> plugins and extensions. This would build a framework without ego in the
> core.
I appreciate your interest and I'm flattered that you think this is a
good idea. Before we get to far down the road I'd like to surface more
of the problems and understand what it is we're talking about a little
more.
>
> Michael McGrady
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
> >Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
> >can get.
> >
> >
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >>Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
> >>WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
> >>contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
> >>tabs, navigation, help, etc..
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by David Evans <ds...@berndtgroup.net>.
Are either Tapestry or Zope the kind of things you're talking about
here? They are both component based web app frameworks. If those are not
what you're talking about, whats the difference?
dave
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 11:26, Michael McGrady wrote:
> I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
>
> I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
> this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
> resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
> what the problem is.
>
>
> Right now Struts includes way too much application specific coding in
> the core. With a pretty concerted team effort it could be cleaned up,
> but with 1.3 on the way, that does not seem to be wise at the moment.
> With Struts 1.2 the problem seems to be increasing rather than
> decreasing. I really think there is a failure to understand the
> problem. I am not too effective at advocating this, because I don't
> have the time to assuage feelings around these issues.
>
>
> With Struts 1.3 coming along, I have just bided my time and kept a copy
> of Struts to consider starting an offshoot that makes the core the core
> and the rest modular with plugins and extensibility. This might not be
> too hard, because the main thing is removing dependencies.
>
>
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
>
> If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-date
> modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs Halloway's
> "Component Development for the Java Program", keeping only a real kernel
> as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge. I bet we could even
> recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he has gone elsewhere for the
> majority of his time right now. I don't think this presently exists. I
> do think that it would "sell" like wildfire to users. This would allow
> the user, in effect, to become automatic developers through their
> plugins and extensions. This would build a framework without ego in the
> core.
>
>
> Michael McGrady
>
> James Mitchell wrote:
>
> >Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
> >can get.
> >
> >
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >>Folks,
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
> >>WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
> >>contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
> >>tabs, navigation, help, etc..
> >>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:26:20 -0700, Michael McGrady wrote:
> PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
>
>
> If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
> maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-
> date modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs
> Halloway's "Component Development for the Java Program", keeping
> only a real kernel as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge.
> I bet we could even recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he
> has gone elsewhere for the majority of his time right now. I don't
> think this presently exists. I do think that it would "sell" like
> wildfire to users. This would allow the user, in effect, to become
> automatic developers through their plugins and extensions. This
> would build a framework without ego in the core.
If you come up with some actual code to commit, consisder setting up shop at Struts SourceForge.
We'll be bringing Struts Control Flow and Struts Scripting over soon, so they will some vacancies :)
Incidentally, the Chain of Responsibility, which is the core of the upcoming Struts 1.3 request processor, does support drag-and-drop components. You can build a JAR so that Chain will automatically plug it into the catalog.
One reason Struts Committers aren't "chaffing at the bit" to explore other proposals is that many of the things people mention would already be supported by Struts chain. We think Chain is going to scratch most of our itches, and so we don't feel the need to shop.
Getting a 1.2.x stable release was a long time coming, but now we can finally get back to business.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework? -- a proposal
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
I have a proposal at the bottom of this email.
I know exactly what you want. Struts is a wonderful potential base for
this. I have been crying for this in Struts, but have only gotten
resistence from the more vocal committers and, I think, a failure to see
what the problem is.
Right now Struts includes way too much application specific coding in
the core. With a pretty concerted team effort it could be cleaned up,
but with 1.3 on the way, that does not seem to be wise at the moment.
With Struts 1.2 the problem seems to be increasing rather than
decreasing. I really think there is a failure to understand the
problem. I am not too effective at advocating this, because I don't
have the time to assuage feelings around these issues.
With Struts 1.3 coming along, I have just bided my time and kept a copy
of Struts to consider starting an offshoot that makes the core the core
and the rest modular with plugins and extensibility. This might not be
too hard, because the main thing is removing dependencies.
PROPOSAL/SUGGESTION
If you were interested, we might try doing this as a Struts Branch,
maybe calling it "Branch" or "Struts Branch", with a really up-to-date
modular structure along the lines indicated in Stuart Dabbs Halloway's
"Component Development for the Java Program", keeping only a real kernel
as the base. We could pop it up on SourceForge. I bet we could even
recruit The Halloway Himself, even though he has gone elsewhere for the
majority of his time right now. I don't think this presently exists. I
do think that it would "sell" like wildfire to users. This would allow
the user, in effect, to become automatic developers through their
plugins and extensions. This would build a framework without ego in the
core.
Michael McGrady
James Mitchell wrote:
>Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
>can get.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>
>>I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
>>WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
>>contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
>>tabs, navigation, help, etc..
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
Posted by Michael McGrady <mi...@michaelmcgrady.com>.
Rob Evans wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:07:26 -0400, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
>>can get.
>>
>>What type of 'specific' functionality do you want bolted on? Have you
>>looked at AppFuse?
>>
>>
>
>The contribution mechanism of struts (as it comes out of the box) is
>much weaker that that of eclipse. The plugin model of eclipse looks
>more like a component model. That's what I want.
>
>I'll have a look at AppFuse.
>
>Thanks.
>
I really think that this has yet to be built, even if there are various
frameworks that do this better or worse. If someone were to build this,
they would, I am sure, have a blockbuster. That would be especially so
if they could use the genius that has already gone into the core of
Struts, AppFuse, etc. I would contribute daily to a team effort in this
direction.
Michael McGrady
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
Posted by Rob Evans <ob...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:07:26 -0400, James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
> can get.
>
> What type of 'specific' functionality do you want bolted on? Have you
> looked at AppFuse?
The contribution mechanism of struts (as it comes out of the box) is
much weaker that that of eclipse. The plugin model of eclipse looks
more like a component model. That's what I want.
I'll have a look at AppFuse.
Thanks.
>
> --
> James Mitchell
> Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
> EdgeTech, Inc.
> 678.910.8017
> AIM: jmitchtx
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
> To: <us...@struts.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:58 AM
> Subject: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
>
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
> > WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
> > contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
> > tabs, navigation, help, etc..
> >
> > Why bother you say? I've found that in a corporate environment with
> > large teams that it's hard to keep applications structured and without
> > structure development costs go up. L&F and application flow guidelines
> > are okay, but they are typically expensive to enforce. It seems to me
> > that the plugin structure of eclipse, and emacs before it, go a long
> > way in providing core services to developers while at the same time
> > enforcing structure.
> >
> > Anyone know a WebApp framework that does what I've described? Anyone
> > else seen this problem or am I alone in this concern?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
Posted by James Mitchell <jm...@apache.org>.
Apache Struts provides just what you want ;) That's about as generic as you
can get.
What type of 'specific' functionality do you want bolted on? Have you
looked at AppFuse?
--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Evans" <ob...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@struts.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: An Eclipse Like WebApp Framework?
> Folks,
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone has thought about developing an Eclipse like
> WebApp framework. The idea is to provide an application shell and a
> contribution (think plugin) mechanism. Contributions could include,
> tabs, navigation, help, etc..
>
> Why bother you say? I've found that in a corporate environment with
> large teams that it's hard to keep applications structured and without
> structure development costs go up. L&F and application flow guidelines
> are okay, but they are typically expensive to enforce. It seems to me
> that the plugin structure of eclipse, and emacs before it, go a long
> way in providing core services to developers while at the same time
> enforcing structure.
>
> Anyone know a WebApp framework that does what I've described? Anyone
> else seen this problem or am I alone in this concern?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org