You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@struts.apache.org by Matt Raible <ma...@raibledesigns.com> on 2002/12/07 03:35:46 UTC
Why struts is looked down upon...
Any of you care to comment on this?
http://java.enigmastation.com/Q806
I'll post a rebuttle on my weblog shortly.
Matt
Re: Why struts is looked down upon...
Posted by "V. Cekvenich" <vi...@users.sourceforge.net>.
Oh, and his comments about Jakarta marketing, will make the Jakarta
marketing department very proud. Let me just forward this to the Jakarta
marketing.
.V
V. Cekvenich wrote:
> My Comments IN-LINE CAPS:
>
> * Struts is not very powerful. There's no action chaining; all of the
> models are one layer deep.
>
> STRUTS IS LIGHT WEIGHT, FAST AND EASY. AND LIKE HE SAID ON TOP, VERY
> POPULAR.
>
> * Struts is bound to the web. You can't use it outside of the
> context of a servlet engine. Model-View-Controller is a very generic
> paradigm; don't you think implementations should follow the paradigm?
>
> SO? WHAT?
>
> * Struts has poor configuration. Struts is bound to the web, so
> you'd think that Least Astonishment would allow you to use web
> semantics, but the config file does things to hide that from you.
>
> IT IS A WEB FRAMEWORK, KISS.
> CONSIDER A SUBMARINE THAT IS ALSO A LAWN MOWER. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING
> THAT DOES 2 THINGS?
>
> * Struts tries to do everything for you: UI, logic, templating, MVC.
> In other words, it's not a toolkit, it's a platform.
>
> I WISH STRUTS DID DO EVERYTHING. IT IS ONLY AN ACTION CONTROLLER.
>
>
> * Struts dictates the view to you: you pretty much have to use JSP in
> order to use Struts. I suppose the mindset is that if you're going to be
> bound to the web, why not bind yourself as much as you can?
>
> TED'S BOOK ADVOCATES VELOCITY, A BIG DEAL IS STXX (XML).
>
>
> Matt Raible wrote:
>
>> Any of you care to comment on this?
>>
>> http://java.enigmastation.com/Q806
>>
>> I'll post a rebuttle on my weblog shortly.
>
>
> I SAY JUST IGNORE HIM, WHO CARE TO ENLIGHTEN HIM. UNLESS YOU SAY "WHICH
> ONE DOES HE FAVOR?"
>
>>
>> Matt
>>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Why struts is looked down upon...
Posted by "V. Cekvenich" <vi...@users.sourceforge.net>.
My Comments IN-LINE CAPS:
* Struts is not very powerful. There's no action chaining; all of the
models are one layer deep.
STRUTS IS LIGHT WEIGHT, FAST AND EASY. AND LIKE HE SAID ON TOP, VERY
POPULAR.
* Struts is bound to the web. You can't use it outside of the
context of a servlet engine. Model-View-Controller is a very generic
paradigm; don't you think implementations should follow the paradigm?
SO? WHAT?
* Struts has poor configuration. Struts is bound to the web, so
you'd think that Least Astonishment would allow you to use web
semantics, but the config file does things to hide that from you.
IT IS A WEB FRAMEWORK, KISS.
CONSIDER A SUBMARINE THAT IS ALSO A LAWN MOWER. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING
THAT DOES 2 THINGS?
* Struts tries to do everything for you: UI, logic, templating,
MVC. In other words, it's not a toolkit, it's a platform.
I WISH STRUTS DID DO EVERYTHING. IT IS ONLY AN ACTION CONTROLLER.
* Struts dictates the view to you: you pretty much have to use JSP in
order to use Struts. I suppose the mindset is that if you're going to be
bound to the web, why not bind yourself as much as you can?
TED'S BOOK ADVOCATES VELOCITY, A BIG DEAL IS STXX (XML).
Matt Raible wrote:
> Any of you care to comment on this?
>
> http://java.enigmastation.com/Q806
>
> I'll post a rebuttle on my weblog shortly.
I SAY JUST IGNORE HIM, WHO CARE TO ENLIGHTEN HIM. UNLESS YOU SAY "WHICH
ONE DOES HE FAVOR?"
>
> Matt
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Why struts is looked down upon...
Posted by Nick <ni...@mg2.org>.
> Is this person worth replying to? He seems to be pretty uninformed about
> struts.
Actaully, the person that posted the negative comments about Struts is
pretty well-informed about the application and it's "competitor," WebWork.
Those are simply his views on the framework.
> Is the another somebody who is not particularly well-schooled?
Hardly. Joe is a pretty sharp guy.
-Nick
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Why struts is looked down upon...
Posted by micael <ca...@harbornet.com>.
At 07:35 PM 12/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Any of you care to comment on this?
>
>http://java.enigmastation.com/Q806
>
>I'll post a rebuttle on my weblog shortly.
>
>Matt
Is this person worth replying to? He seems to be pretty uninformed about
struts. Is the another somebody who is not particularly well-schooled?
Micael
-------------------------------------------------------
This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain
information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally
privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as
indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the
information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please delete the message. Thank
you
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>