You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com> on 2006/03/29 18:26:52 UTC
Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the
>two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people
>should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a
>tooth pulled. So if they say it...
Here you ascribe an outlook on things to "the Struts people" which
assumes that your motivations are theirs.
Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as
cooperative, not competitive, even between projects.
I think Niall's answer to the question "why did Struts development
stagnate" is pretty much what I would say. I'm not doing this for
bragging rights, and it's not the only thing I like to do in my spare
time. I contribute when I can. If it helps anyone, that's great.
As far as I can tell it hasn't hurt anyone.
Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process.
As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to
carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is
another group of developers whose motivations are not what you
personally might guess they are.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Joe Germuska <Jo...@Germuska.com>.
At 7:09 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>Joe Germuska wrote:
>>At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>>
>>>It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it,
>>>the two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts
>>>people should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as
>>>to have a tooth pulled. So if they say it...
>>
>>
>>Here you ascribe an outlook on things to "the Struts people" which
>>assumes that your motivations are theirs.
>>
>>Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as
>>cooperative, not competitive, even between projects.
>
>LOL.
>
>Well, Joe, wouldn't a casual observer say that you are taking this
>position because your team lost the technical competition?
Some might; some might not. Whether or not they said it wouldn't
mean it was correct.
>Of course, you'd expect the losers to rationalize things saying it
>wasn't *really* a competition.
No. You would expect this. I would not.
>So your assertion that "it hasn't hurt anyone" is quite debatable.
>By leveraging the extra placement and visibility advantages of ASF
>to promote an inferior body of work, you have been breathing the
>oxygen of an innovative project that really was doing the real work
>of pushing forward the state of the art.
See, I am not doing any of these things. I'm just a person who has a
job to do, and I choose to work with others to help me get this job
done. Everything else you have written is your own window dressing
on the situation.
>But if you think these guys like Patrick and Jason aren't
>ego-driven, surely you're kidding yourself. Just as you'd be kidding
>yourself if you think Craig, say, isn't extremely ego-driven. None
>of these people, as far as I can see, make the slightest attempt
>even to hide it.
Frankly, I don't care what their motivations are.
>But, Joe, I think that, most poeple, in their heart of hearts, don't
>believe this kind of line. It's a bunch of politically correct
>drivel really. Get real.
I just thought I should point out that for all of your self-assured
declarations about how the world works, you are not necessarily
right. You can try to speak for "most people", but you don't speak
for me.
Really,
Joe
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com * http://blog.germuska.com
"You really can't burn anything out by trying something new, and
even if you can burn it out, it can be fixed. Try something new."
-- Robert Moog
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Jonathan Revusky <re...@wanadoo.es>.
Joe Germuska wrote:
> At 5:30 PM +0200 3/29/06, Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>
>> It has some clear implications too. No matter how you shake it, the
>> two things were technical *competitors*. Normally, the Struts people
>> should be about as happy to say that Webwork is better as to have a
>> tooth pulled. So if they say it...
>
>
> Here you ascribe an outlook on things to "the Struts people" which
> assumes that your motivations are theirs.
>
> Frankly, this is inaccurate for me. I see open source software as
> cooperative, not competitive, even between projects.
LOL.
Well, Joe, wouldn't a casual observer say that you are taking this
position because your team lost the technical competition?
Of course, you'd expect the losers to rationalize things saying it
wasn't *really* a competition. But the fact remains that projects in the
same space are competing to offer the most compelling solutions in their
application space. It should be a friendly, good-natured rivalry, yes.
But the logic and structure of this is one of competition.
It is a marketplace (more of ideas than money and so on) but a market of
sorts nonetheless and a market system is something with a logic and
structure of competition.
When Patrick and Jason wrote stuff like "Struts really sucks" and so on,
there was a clear sense that this was a competitive situation and they
were kind of throwing down the gauntlet.
>
> I think Niall's answer to the question "why did Struts development
> stagnate" is pretty much what I would say. I'm not doing this for
> bragging rights, and it's not the only thing I like to do in my spare
> time. I contribute when I can. If it helps anyone, that's great. As
> far as I can tell it hasn't hurt anyone.
Well, in this case, there is the additional problem that Struts and
Webwork, while competing, as I say, were not competing on an even
playing field. This is why the Webwork people, despite having a much
better product, have far fewer users.
By bringing in Webwork and abandoning the existing Struts codebase, you
are accepting that all the people who are currently using Struts would
have been better off using Webwork. (I suggest that you not try to
attack this point, because it looks unassailable.)
So your assertion that "it hasn't hurt anyone" is quite debatable. By
leveraging the extra placement and visibility advantages of ASF to
promote an inferior body of work, you have been breathing the oxygen of
an innovative project that really was doing the real work of pushing
forward the state of the art.
>
> Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process. As
> far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to carry
> on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is another group
> of developers whose motivations are not what you personally might guess
> they are.
Well, they've made a Faustian sort of deal in order to get more
publicity for their work.
But if you think these guys like Patrick and Jason aren't ego-driven,
surely you're kidding yourself. Just as you'd be kidding yourself if you
think Craig, say, isn't extremely ego-driven. None of these people, as
far as I can see, make the slightest attempt even to hide it.
Of course, when the ego-driven people are forced to admit that their
work was inferior, then sure, they can then say that this isn't really a
competition, and they don't mind because they don't have egos and so on.
But, Joe, I think that, most poeple, in their heart of hearts, don't
believe this kind of line. It's a bunch of politically correct drivel
really. Get real.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/
>
> Joe
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] Re: How to restrict number of chocies in multiple html:select
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@pingsite.com>.
Dave Newton wrote:
> Adam Lipscombe wrote:
>
>> OK I could validate the number selected in the actionform or in javascript
>> but I would really like to tell the combo box to only allow N selections.
>>
>>
> AFAIK this is completely browser-controlled as it's a standard HTML
> select tag. You would need to use JavaScript.
>
Whoops, meant to add that you could validate server-side by looking at
the length of the array and writing a custom validator (one may already
exist for this; I don't recall).
But I don't believe that HTML supports a "max number of selections"
attribute.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
[OT] Re: How to restrict number of chocies in multiple html:select
Posted by Dave Newton <ne...@pingsite.com>.
Adam Lipscombe wrote:
> With an <html:select .. multiple="true"> is it possible to restrict the
> number of selections that can be made?
> To say 2 or 3?
>
> OK I could validate the number selected in the actionform or in javascript
> but I would really like to tell the combo box to only allow N selections.
>
AFAIK this is completely browser-controlled as it's a standard HTML
select tag. You would need to use JavaScript.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
How to restrict number of chocies in multiple html:select
Posted by Adam Lipscombe <ad...@expensys.com>.
Folks,
With an <html:select .. multiple="true"> is it possible to restrict the
number of selections that can be made?
To say 2 or 3?
OK I could validate the number selected in the actionform or in javascript
but I would really like to tell the combo box to only allow N selections.
TIA -Adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Dakota Jack <da...@gmail.com>.
Are the insiders the ones that coded Struts out the door or the ones that
are bringing new code to the table? If you meant the ones that coded Struts
out the door then if they refuse to do anything about lessons learned, I
would not listen to them. I would listen to the outsiders who told them
they were headed down a bad path. Do not think I think Don Brown does bad
work. I think he is probably by far the most talented committer. He is
almost as good as the outsiders. ;-)
On 3/30/06, Hubert Rabago <hr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Al,
>
> Not everyone who posts on the lists are insiders.
>
> If you want some insider info, go to the actual people doing the work,
> like Don Brown.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-dev&m=114369603519450&w=2
>
> Hubert
>
> On 3/30/06, Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/29/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the
> > > "describing" that you are referring to.
> >
> > I just go by what the insiders have published here. If the insiders have
> > no credibility, let's turn off the lights and go home.
> >
> > When the WebWork deal was announced it was made clear that WebWork
> > was so much better that there was no point in trying to shoehorn it in
> > the current codebase, but a new Struts Action 2 was going to be created
> > that was going to be, essentially, WebWork.
> >
> > The current Struts, so bad that it could not be fixed, was going to be
> > re-christened as Struts Action 1 and, for all intents and purposes,
> > mothballed.
> >
> > Of course, it was not put this bluntly, but that was the gist of it.
> >
> > Now, to me this qualifies more as a takeover than a merger; a revolution
> > not evolution. Which, by the way, is fine with me.
> >
> > What is not so fine is trying to cling to the Struts name because of its
> > value as a brand, even though the software is completely different.
> >
> > If you are now interested in JSF, more power to you, just let go of the
> > Struts name. If the other committers think that WebWork is much
> > better, they should join the WebWork project and leave the reins of
> > the Struts project with someone else.
> >
> > Names that confuse are not very useful.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Hubert Rabago <hr...@gmail.com>.
Al,
Not everyone who posts on the lists are insiders.
If you want some insider info, go to the actual people doing the work,
like Don Brown.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=struts-dev&m=114369603519450&w=2
Hubert
On 3/30/06, Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the
> > "describing" that you are referring to.
>
> I just go by what the insiders have published here. If the insiders have
> no credibility, let's turn off the lights and go home.
>
> When the WebWork deal was announced it was made clear that WebWork
> was so much better that there was no point in trying to shoehorn it in
> the current codebase, but a new Struts Action 2 was going to be created
> that was going to be, essentially, WebWork.
>
> The current Struts, so bad that it could not be fixed, was going to be
> re-christened as Struts Action 1 and, for all intents and purposes,
> mothballed.
>
> Of course, it was not put this bluntly, but that was the gist of it.
>
> Now, to me this qualifies more as a takeover than a merger; a revolution
> not evolution. Which, by the way, is fine with me.
>
> What is not so fine is trying to cling to the Struts name because of its
> value as a brand, even though the software is completely different.
>
> If you are now interested in JSF, more power to you, just let go of the
> Struts name. If the other committers think that WebWork is much
> better, they should join the WebWork project and leave the reins of
> the Struts project with someone else.
>
> Names that confuse are not very useful.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com>.
On 3/29/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the
> "describing" that you are referring to.
I just go by what the insiders have published here. If the insiders have
no credibility, let's turn off the lights and go home.
When the WebWork deal was announced it was made clear that WebWork
was so much better that there was no point in trying to shoehorn it in
the current codebase, but a new Struts Action 2 was going to be created
that was going to be, essentially, WebWork.
The current Struts, so bad that it could not be fixed, was going to be
re-christened as Struts Action 1 and, for all intents and purposes,
mothballed.
Of course, it was not put this bluntly, but that was the gist of it.
Now, to me this qualifies more as a takeover than a merger; a revolution
not evolution. Which, by the way, is fine with me.
What is not so fine is trying to cling to the Struts name because of its
value as a brand, even though the software is completely different.
If you are now interested in JSF, more power to you, just let go of the
Struts name. If the other committers think that WebWork is much
better, they should join the WebWork project and leave the reins of
the Struts project with someone else.
Names that confuse are not very useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Dakota Jack <da...@gmail.com>.
The hullabaloo, Larry, is about the stability of the platform with a bunch
of committers who don't appear to be up to the job and who are not willing
to look at what went wrong. The stability of a platform like Struts is a
big deal. This is a time to decide to go with or to get off the Struts
wagon. How the committers respond has a lot to do with this.
On 3/29/06, Larry Meadors <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/06, Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their
> > little-known framework is re-branded as Struts.
> >
> > Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and
> > WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world.
> > It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you.
>
> Seriously, this seems like a win-win.
>
> Struts gets a better technical design, WW gets some recognition and a
> good brand.
>
> The users get the best of both worlds.
>
> I don't really see what all the hullabaloo is about really...
>
> Larry
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 3/29/06, Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/29/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
>
> > Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process.
>
> The way it has been described here it looks to me more like a takeover
> than a merger.
You need to pay attention to the credibility of who is doing the
"describing" that you are referring to.
Craig
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Larry Meadors <lm...@apache.org>.
On 3/29/06, Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their
> little-known framework is re-branded as Struts.
>
> Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and
> WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world.
> It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you.
Seriously, this seems like a win-win.
Struts gets a better technical design, WW gets some recognition and a
good brand.
The users get the best of both worlds.
I don't really see what all the hullabaloo is about really...
Larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: Open Source Motivations (Re: I Apologize)
Posted by Al Eridani <al...@gmail.com>.
On 3/29/06, Joe Germuska <Jo...@germuska.com> wrote:
> Also note that the WebWork team is supporting this merger process.
The way it has been described here it looks to me more like a takeover
than a merger.
> As far as I know, none of them have vigorously objected, nor sworn to
> carry on WebWork under its own name, etc. So perhaps there is
> another group of developers whose motivations are not what you
> personally might guess they are.
That shows they are not stupid. They stand to gain a lot when their
little-known framework is re-branded as Struts.
Just go to craigslist, DICE or other job sites, search for Struts and
WebWork and compare the resulting numbers. That is the real world.
It translates into real dollars. That is branding for you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org