You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> on 2007/03/09 14:59:20 UTC
[FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
wants. [3]
Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
contexts.
Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
templates and other alternative solutions.
Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
must be a nail.
Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
- Ted.
* http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
[1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
[2] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
[3] http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
[4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
[5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
If you want to work on it, Musachy, I'll get you a login. :)
-Ted.
On 3/9/07, Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those of us that live in another planet and use Struts 2, our planet :
>
> http://planetstruts.org/
>
> has a weird home page :)
>
> musachy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://planetstruts.org/
>
> has a weird home page :)
I like it; minimalist, straight to the point. Kinda
Web 0.2-ish; only 1.8 off.
d.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com>.
For those of us that live in another planet and use Struts 2, our planet :
http://planetstruts.org/
has a weird home page :)
musachy
On 3/9/07, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another blog, another comment:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2007/02/apache_struts_2_ga_release.html#comment-506880
>
> "struts2 missed the boat. It has a nice "vintage" feeling to it, and
> it may be able to ride the marketing clout that goes with the name,
> but the technology feels like a "blast from the past". If you are on
> jdk5 and want an action-oriented framework, go with stripes."
>
> On 3/9/07, Vinny <xa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm just happy your post didn't conclude with
> > "... and that is why I'm switching to Flex..."
> > It's Friday,
> > Vinny
> >
> > On 3/9/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
> > >
> > > As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
> > > comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
> > >
> > > One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
> > > sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
> > > mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
> > > times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
> > > page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
> > > whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
> > > to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
> > > wants. [3]
> > >
> > > Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
> > > like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
> > > JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
> > > out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
> > > scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
> > >
> > > One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
> > > the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
> > > the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
> > > values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
> > >
> > > Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
> > > push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
> > > to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
> > > application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
> > > to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
> > > contexts.
> > >
> > > Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
> > > servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
> > > benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
> > > own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
> > > resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
> > > provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
> > > mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
> > > before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
> > > Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
> > >
> > > If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
> > > because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
> > > JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
> > > templates and other alternative solutions.
> > >
> > > Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
> > > standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
> > > clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
> > > because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
> > > hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
> > > technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
> > > must be a nail.
> > >
> > > Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
> > > technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
> > > with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
> > >
> > > - Ted.
> > > * http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
> > >
> > > [2]
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
> > >
> > > [3]
> http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
> > >
> > > [4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
> > >
> > > [5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Romu <ro...@gmail.com>.
respect for the http://www.ghettojava.com/blog/default/ .
2007/3/9, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>:
>
> On 3/9/07, stanlick@gmail.com <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is also much confusion across the board regarding WW and S2. Are
> they
> > the same? Is support dead for S1? Unless you have had your nose
> pressed up
> > to the incubator for the past year, It really is confusing.
>
> Is there something that we didn't cover here?
>
> * http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
>
>
> > What about publishing a Cook Book or bolster up the guides and tutorials
> to
> > reveal more than snippets of experimental code. What about a "book" on
> the
> > framework? I love the motivation behind this effort, but I actually
> wonder
> > if S2 was released prematurely.
>
> I think we'd all love to see things like that, but we need volunteers
> to step up and do the work. AFAIK, all of the committers work fulltime
> elsewhere during the day, and we give to open source what we can,
> after hours, on our own dime.
>
> If anyone would like to join in the fun, the best place to start is
> the How to Help FAQ.
>
> * http://struts.apache.org/helping.html
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
On 3/9/07, stanlick@gmail.com <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is also much confusion across the board regarding WW and S2. Are they
> the same? Is support dead for S1? Unless you have had your nose pressed up
> to the incubator for the past year, It really is confusing.
Is there something that we didn't cover here?
* http://struts.apache.org/roadmap.html
> What about publishing a Cook Book or bolster up the guides and tutorials to
> reveal more than snippets of experimental code. What about a "book" on the
> framework? I love the motivation behind this effort, but I actually wonder
> if S2 was released prematurely.
I think we'd all love to see things like that, but we need volunteers
to step up and do the work. AFAIK, all of the committers work fulltime
elsewhere during the day, and we give to open source what we can,
after hours, on our own dime.
If anyone would like to join in the fun, the best place to start is
the How to Help FAQ.
* http://struts.apache.org/helping.html
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by st...@gmail.com.
I really hoped that S2 was going to be the RoR competitor Java developers
need. However, after working with S2 for the past several months <yeah, I
was experimenting before it was GA> it is either a mess, or simply too big
with no instructions on how the pieces fit together. Sure, there are a few
trivial examples and plenty of source code to pour over, but who wants to
learn a framework buy reading source code? Getting things to work as
expected is largely trial and error. It's so different from S1 (OGNL, DI,
DoJo) that it's almost a hindrance for those who are deep into S1 apps. I
have a big application running in S1 using Tiles, validation framework,
hibernate... the works! I have yet to figure out how to get this
application to work in S2. In fact, reading the threads has me wondering if
Tiles is even supported in S2.
There is also much confusion across the board regarding WW and S2. Are they
the same? Is support dead for S1? Unless you have had your nose pressed up
to the incubator for the past year, It really is confusing.
What about publishing a Cook Book or bolster up the guides and tutorials to
reveal more than snippets of experimental code. What about a "book" on the
framework? I love the motivation behind this effort, but I actually wonder
if S2 was released prematurely.
Thanks,
Scott
On 3/9/07, Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another blog, another comment:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2007/02/apache_struts_2_ga_release.html#comment-506880
>
> "struts2 missed the boat. It has a nice "vintage" feeling to it, and
> it may be able to ride the marketing clout that goes with the name,
> but the technology feels like a "blast from the past". If you are on
> jdk5 and want an action-oriented framework, go with stripes."
>
> On 3/9/07, Vinny <xa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm just happy your post didn't conclude with
> > "... and that is why I'm switching to Flex..."
> > It's Friday,
> > Vinny
> >
> > On 3/9/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
> > >
> > > As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
> > > comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
> > >
> > > One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
> > > sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
> > > mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
> > > times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
> > > page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
> > > whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
> > > to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
> > > wants. [3]
> > >
> > > Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
> > > like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
> > > JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
> > > out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
> > > scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
> > >
> > > One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
> > > the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
> > > the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
> > > values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
> > >
> > > Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
> > > push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
> > > to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
> > > application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
> > > to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
> > > contexts.
> > >
> > > Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
> > > servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
> > > benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
> > > own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
> > > resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
> > > provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
> > > mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
> > > before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
> > > Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
> > >
> > > If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
> > > because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
> > > JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
> > > templates and other alternative solutions.
> > >
> > > Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
> > > standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
> > > clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
> > > because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
> > > hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
> > > technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
> > > must be a nail.
> > >
> > > Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
> > > technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
> > > with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
> > >
> > > - Ted.
> > > * http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
> > >
> > > [2]
> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
> > >
> > > [3]
> http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
> > >
> > > [4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
> > >
> > > [5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Scott
stanlick@gmail.com
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@yahoo.com>.
--- Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "struts2 missed the boat. It has a nice "vintage"
> feeling to it, and it may be able to ride the
> marketing clout that goes with the name,
> but the technology feels like a "blast from the
> past". If you are on jdk5 and want an
action-oriented
> framework, go with stripes."
I'm not sure I see any real advantages of Stripes as
compared to S2; I'm not convinced the poster knows
much about current S2.
Can someone that knows something about Stripes fill me
in if there are any big wins?
d.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Michael Jouravlev <jm...@gmail.com>.
Another blog, another comment:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2007/02/apache_struts_2_ga_release.html#comment-506880
"struts2 missed the boat. It has a nice "vintage" feeling to it, and
it may be able to ride the marketing clout that goes with the name,
but the technology feels like a "blast from the past". If you are on
jdk5 and want an action-oriented framework, go with stripes."
On 3/9/07, Vinny <xa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just happy your post didn't conclude with
> "... and that is why I'm switching to Flex..."
> It's Friday,
> Vinny
>
> On 3/9/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
> >
> > As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
> > comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
> >
> > One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
> > sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
> > mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
> > times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
> > page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
> > whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
> > to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
> > wants. [3]
> >
> > Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
> > like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
> > JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
> > out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
> > scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
> >
> > One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
> > the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
> > the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
> > values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
> >
> > Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
> > push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
> > to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
> > application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
> > to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
> > contexts.
> >
> > Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
> > servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
> > benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
> > own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
> > resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
> > provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
> >
> > Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
> > mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
> > before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
> > Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
> >
> > If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
> > because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
> > JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
> > templates and other alternative solutions.
> >
> > Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
> > standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
> > clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
> > because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
> > hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
> > technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
> > must be a nail.
> >
> > Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
> > technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
> > with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
> >
> > - Ted.
> > * http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
> >
> > [2] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
> >
> > [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
> >
> > [4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
> >
> > [5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Vinny <xa...@gmail.com>.
I'm just happy your post didn't conclude with
"... and that is why I'm switching to Flex..."
It's Friday,
Vinny
On 3/9/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
>
> As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
> comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
>
> One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
> sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
> mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
> times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
> page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
> whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
> to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
> wants. [3]
>
> Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
> like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
> JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
> out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
> scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
>
> One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
> the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
> the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
> values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
>
> Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
> push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
> to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
> application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
> to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
> contexts.
>
> Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
> servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
> benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
> own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
> resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
> provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
>
> Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
> mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
> before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
> Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
>
> If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
> because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
> JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
> templates and other alternative solutions.
>
> Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
> standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
> clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
> because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
> hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
> technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
> must be a nail.
>
> Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
> technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
> with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
>
> - Ted.
> * http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
>
>
> [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
>
> [2] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
>
> [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
>
> [4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
>
> [5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
Ghetto Java: http://www.ghettojava.com
Re: [FRIDAY] WebDev Pushmi-Pullyu
Posted by Musachy Barroso <mu...@gmail.com>.
This was my favorite post:
" Are you guys coming from a different planet?
Then let me tell you that here on planet earth web developers are going
component based."
:)
musachy
On 3/9/07, Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Just some rambling ruminations from my blog ...
>
> As might be expected, the Struts 2 GA announcement had its share of
> comments on The Server Side last week. [1]
>
> One subtopic was push versus pull. As with many terms, I think we
> sometimes use "push" and "pull" to mean different things. Sometimes we
> mean it to contrast component versus action paradigms [2]. Other
> times, we mean to contrast creating a custom context (or API) for each
> page that exposes only what that page is suppose to know (push), or
> whether we should create a global context (or API) that can be exposed
> to every page, so each page can pick and choose (pull) whatever it
> wants. [3]
>
> Another use of the "push/pull" term is to contrast "merge" templates,
> like Velocity and FreeMarker, with "scriptlet" templates, like ASP,
> JSP, and PHP. In this usage, the point is whether it is better to push
> out to the page a prepared context, or whether the page should use
> scriplets to pull values from the platform's shared context.
>
> One benefit of push is that it easier to use the technology outside of
> the environment, since we can create a prepared context independent of
> the target platform. One benefit of pull is that its easier to share
> values with other application resources, since the context is shared.
>
> Struts 1 tends to muddle this kind of push and pull. ActionForms are
> push, but we also provide a lot of servlet attributes which pages need
> to pull from one of the platform's scopes (page, servlet,
> application). The Velocity support for Struts uses a chained context
> to provide access to a Velocity context as well as the platform
> contexts.
>
> Struts 2 creates its own context that includes references to the
> servlet scopes (as plain-old Maps). In this way, S2 provides the
> benefits of both push and pull. For testing, it's easy to create our
> own action context, and at runtime, we can access the usual servlet
> resources. Another benefit of wrapping pull-within-push is that we can
> provide "first class" tag support for JSP, FreeMarker and Velocity.
>
> Personally, I'm a fan of the template approach. The Struts 1 tags
> mitigated the damage JSP scriplets were causing back in the day [4];
> before JSTL, stock JSPs were a ugly, inelegant mess. (And before
> Velocity people got involved in JSTL, the JSTL was a mess too.)
>
> If there is a single reason why Struts 1 was so successful, it was
> because we provided a JSP taglib when everyone else (Barracuda,
> JPublish, Maverick, Tapestry, Turbine, among others) was focused on
> templates and other alternative solutions.
>
> Over the years, I've consulted with some large concerns that
> standardized on templates pre-y2k. The technology worked well, but my
> clients eventually replaced the templates with Struts and JSPs. Not
> because JSP was "better", but because JSP worker drones are easy to
> hire. As Craig said [5], project managers tend to choose "mainstream"
> technologies, regardless. We already have a hammer, so every problem
> must be a nail.
>
> Ironically, Struts 2 "levels the playing field", so that "alternative"
> technologies like Velocity, Freemarker, and AJAX are on equal footing
> with "mainstream" technologies like JSP, JSF, and, well, AJAX. :)
>
> - Ted.
> * http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
>
>
> [1] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429
>
> [2] http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44429#228491
>
> [3] http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine/turbine-2.3.2/pullmodel.html
>
> [4] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp.html
>
> [5] http://www.servlets.com/soapbox/problems-jsp-reaction.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
"Hey you! Would you help me to carry the stone?" Pink Floyd