Does Struts really need two frameworks? (long)

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On 6/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...> wrote:

> What about a "generic" Faces project, like portals or ws ?
> Apache Faces.
>
> To me Shale fits fine into that.
>
> There - in an apache faces land - is enough space for:
> Myfaces
> Tomahawk
> Tobago
> Shale
> Sandbox (well, our sandbox)
> and soon Trinidad (aka ADF Faces donation)
>
> WDYT ?

As far as I can tell, you've just proposed adding Shale and renaming
the MyFaces project to just 'Faces'. :)

Everything you listed (except Shale) is already at MyFaces, or coming
soon.  And I agree, Shale is a better fit with that list.

--
Wendy

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

[Matthias Wessendorf-4]

To me it makes more sense to have an Apache Faces TLP

with lot's of subprojects.

MyFaces as TLP is sometimes confusing too.
Why all these component libs.
For instance you can't mix Tobago with Tomahawk.
... but you can use Tobago with each JSF impl

so, hey I am +1 for a Apache Faces TLP
and +1 for having Shale its place there in.

-Matthias

On 6/22/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@...> wrote:

> On 6/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...> wrote:
>
> > What about a "generic" Faces project, like portals or ws ?
> > Apache Faces.
> >
> > To me Shale fits fine into that.
> >
> > There - in an apache faces land - is enough space for:
> > Myfaces
> > Tomahawk
> > Tobago
> > Shale
> > Sandbox (well, our sandbox)
> > and soon Trinidad (aka ADF Faces donation)
> >
> > WDYT ?
>
> As far as I can tell, you've just proposed adding Shale and renaming
> the MyFaces project to just 'Faces'. :)
>
> Everything you listed (except Shale) is already at MyFaces, or coming
> soon.  And I agree, Shale is a better fit with that list.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
Matthias Wessendorf
Aechterhoek 18
48282 Emsdetten
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

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

[Dakota Jack]

Who would "they" be?  Did anyone notice that Craig resurrected the failing
JSF for Sun?  I really like Sun but this has to be the worst thing they have
managed to back.

On 6/22/06, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@...> wrote:

>
> My 2 cents.
>
> I agree with Don that we have created "user" confusion by having two
> competing frameworks. However I think if we're going to continue to
> have both then they should both be "first class citizens" - rather
> than relegating Shale.
>
> Personally, user confusion is secondary IMO to whether the developers
> still think theres merit in sharing the space and opportunities to
> co-operate. Since I'm not currently contributing anything to either
> SAF2 or Shale I'll leave it up to others to make that assesment -
> although to date there seems to have been little benefit.
>
> If others think the confusion is the #1 issue then the only solution
> IMO is for Shale to move home.
>
> Maybe we should "poll" the current committers on what they would prefer?
>
> Niall
>
> P.S. I was at a Sun "java roadshow" this week - they were putting out
> the message that Shale is the next Struts
>
> On 6/20/06, Don Brown <mrdon@...> wrote:
> > As Shale and Action zero in on their first GA release, I don't think it
> is too
> > late to ask the question, "Does Struts really need two frameworks?"  We
> have
> > been putting out the message, "two frameworks, one community", for
> almost a year
> > now, but I still sense a lot of confusion and even rejection from the
> Struts
> > community.  The problem is for our whole history, Struts was a single
> framework,
> > what you went to if you wanted to structure your web application
> according to
> > Model2 principles.  Our attempts to turn Struts into an umbrella
> project, I
> > feel, have failed.
> >
> > Struts Action 2 is seen, by some, as a simple rebranding of WebWork 2,
> and to be
> > honest, it really is at this stage.  Struts Shale is seen as
> non-sequitur,
> > milking the Struts brand name.  While these opinions are most extremely
> > expressed by our more radical members, they are also held to some degree
> by some
> > very smart, sensible people [1].
> >
> >  From a Struts committer perspective, Wendy made a good point to me the
> other
> > day saying that Struts lacks the single purpose or vision of most Open
> Source
> > projects.  Despite our recent attempts to find common ground, Shale and
> Action
> > are still positioned as competing frameworks with no overlap.  This
> division
> > leads to conflicts that suck the joy out of Open Source development.
> >
> > Recently, Struts Action 2 unified the programming models of action-based
> and
> > component-based development by allowing the developer to adopt an
> action-based
> > approach for an application, yet use JSF components and abilities where
> needed.
> >  We have always said the desired end state would be to return Struts
> into a
> > unified framework, and I think we should jump on this chance now.
> >
> > I propose Struts return to its roots as a unified framework through
> building on
> >  three libraries to make JSF and pure Servlet/JSP development
> easier.  Namely,
> > I propose the Struts project to be the following subprojects, each with
> their
> > own release cycle:
> >
> >  - Framework: Struts 2
> >  - Libraries: Struts Action, Shale and Struts Tags
> >
> > Struts would be the single framework the world would see.  It would
> contain
> > support for Action-based, JSF-based, and hybrid applications.  Its
> documentation
> > would promote the Struts Action controller as the preferred entry point,
> even if
> > only to be used for AJAX services.  Its JSF library, Struts Shale,
> however,
> > could be used with a regular FacesServlet.  JSF components and Struts
> Tags would
> > be equals when describing how to tackle the View of an application.
> >
> > Struts Action would be the core library driving Struts 2, replace Struts
> 1.x.
> > This library would be everything now known as Struts Action 2, but
> without the
> > UI components.  We would aim for a solid Action-based library
> independent of the
> > view, much like Action 1.x.  When we talked about what an Action JSR
> would look
> > like, this would be it.
> >
> > Struts Shale would be repositioned as a library, which I think is a
> better fit.
> >  A framework to me is a comprehensive, one-stop-shop solution to create
> an
> > application.  A library is a collection of independent features that can
> be used
> > in piecemeal.  Therefore, I think a library is a better definition for
> Shale's
> > collection of JSF extensions.  While Struts Action would definitely
> support
> > Shale, it would continue to be able to be used with pure JSF
> applications.
> >
> > Struts Tags would be the WebWork UI components, a library of re-usable,
> > stateless tags that can be used in Velocity, Freemarker, or JSP.  They
> would
> > include current and future AJAX tags.  These tags would most likely
> remain tied
> > to Struts Action 2, but not necessarily.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Action? By splitting of the tags, we can
> focus on
> > the core project and get it out the door quicker.  By publicizing our
> JSF and
> > Shale integration, we would open our framework up to a broader audience.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Shale? Shale would also be opened up to a
> broader,
> > Action-based audience and wouldn't be seen as a competitor to Struts
> Action.  It
> > wouldn't lose its autonomy or pure JSF support.  It would gain developer
> support
> > as more Action-based apps would start to use JSF and need Shale.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Tags? The tags could evolve quicker with
> faster
> > releases due to less code.  They would be free to add new marginal
> features
> > without worrying about bloating Struts.  This project would be analogous
> to
> > MyFaces Tomahawk as a library of components.
> >
> > How would this benefit the Struts community? Finally, Struts returns to
> its
> > roots as a single framework.  While pieces of it may be usable outside
> the
> > Action-based controller like Shale, it becomes the single place you go
> to solve
> > your application development needs.  The documentation would be unified
> and the
> > supporting committer community in step.  If you wanted the whole
> framework, you
> > download Struts.  If you just want one of the libraries, they are
> available ala
> > carte as well.
> >
> > This proposed change is primarily one of message and vision, and should
> have
> > minimal impact on current development activity.  With the next
> generation of
> > books and conferences in the works, I think it is important to develop a
> clear
> > message to the Struts community and minimize any confusion.
> >
> > The bottom line is we want Struts to be the place to go to make web
> development
> > easier, faster, with less hassles.  I think this proposal provides the
> vision to
> > make that happen.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2006/06/isnt_rails_supposed_to_change.html
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

[Dakota Jack]

I see a lot more than "user" confusion, Niall.  I see total confusion.

On 6/22/06, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@...> wrote:

>
> My 2 cents.
>
> I agree with Don that we have created "user" confusion by having two
> competing frameworks. However I think if we're going to continue to
> have both then they should both be "first class citizens" - rather
> than relegating Shale.
>
> Personally, user confusion is secondary IMO to whether the developers
> still think theres merit in sharing the space and opportunities to
> co-operate. Since I'm not currently contributing anything to either
> SAF2 or Shale I'll leave it up to others to make that assesment -
> although to date there seems to have been little benefit.
>
> If others think the confusion is the #1 issue then the only solution
> IMO is for Shale to move home.
>
> Maybe we should "poll" the current committers on what they would prefer?
>
> Niall
>
> P.S. I was at a Sun "java roadshow" this week - they were putting out
> the message that Shale is the next Struts
>
> On 6/20/06, Don Brown <mrdon@...> wrote:
> > As Shale and Action zero in on their first GA release, I don't think it
> is too
> > late to ask the question, "Does Struts really need two frameworks?"  We
> have
> > been putting out the message, "two frameworks, one community", for
> almost a year
> > now, but I still sense a lot of confusion and even rejection from the
> Struts
> > community.  The problem is for our whole history, Struts was a single
> framework,
> > what you went to if you wanted to structure your web application
> according to
> > Model2 principles.  Our attempts to turn Struts into an umbrella
> project, I
> > feel, have failed.
> >
> > Struts Action 2 is seen, by some, as a simple rebranding of WebWork 2,
> and to be
> > honest, it really is at this stage.  Struts Shale is seen as
> non-sequitur,
> > milking the Struts brand name.  While these opinions are most extremely
> > expressed by our more radical members, they are also held to some degree
> by some
> > very smart, sensible people [1].
> >
> >  From a Struts committer perspective, Wendy made a good point to me the
> other
> > day saying that Struts lacks the single purpose or vision of most Open
> Source
> > projects.  Despite our recent attempts to find common ground, Shale and
> Action
> > are still positioned as competing frameworks with no overlap.  This
> division
> > leads to conflicts that suck the joy out of Open Source development.
> >
> > Recently, Struts Action 2 unified the programming models of action-based
> and
> > component-based development by allowing the developer to adopt an
> action-based
> > approach for an application, yet use JSF components and abilities where
> needed.
> >  We have always said the desired end state would be to return Struts
> into a
> > unified framework, and I think we should jump on this chance now.
> >
> > I propose Struts return to its roots as a unified framework through
> building on
> >  three libraries to make JSF and pure Servlet/JSP development
> easier.  Namely,
> > I propose the Struts project to be the following subprojects, each with
> their
> > own release cycle:
> >
> >  - Framework: Struts 2
> >  - Libraries: Struts Action, Shale and Struts Tags
> >
> > Struts would be the single framework the world would see.  It would
> contain
> > support for Action-based, JSF-based, and hybrid applications.  Its
> documentation
> > would promote the Struts Action controller as the preferred entry point,
> even if
> > only to be used for AJAX services.  Its JSF library, Struts Shale,
> however,
> > could be used with a regular FacesServlet.  JSF components and Struts
> Tags would
> > be equals when describing how to tackle the View of an application.
> >
> > Struts Action would be the core library driving Struts 2, replace Struts
> 1.x.
> > This library would be everything now known as Struts Action 2, but
> without the
> > UI components.  We would aim for a solid Action-based library
> independent of the
> > view, much like Action 1.x.  When we talked about what an Action JSR
> would look
> > like, this would be it.
> >
> > Struts Shale would be repositioned as a library, which I think is a
> better fit.
> >  A framework to me is a comprehensive, one-stop-shop solution to create
> an
> > application.  A library is a collection of independent features that can
> be used
> > in piecemeal.  Therefore, I think a library is a better definition for
> Shale's
> > collection of JSF extensions.  While Struts Action would definitely
> support
> > Shale, it would continue to be able to be used with pure JSF
> applications.
> >
> > Struts Tags would be the WebWork UI components, a library of re-usable,
> > stateless tags that can be used in Velocity, Freemarker, or JSP.  They
> would
> > include current and future AJAX tags.  These tags would most likely
> remain tied
> > to Struts Action 2, but not necessarily.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Action? By splitting of the tags, we can
> focus on
> > the core project and get it out the door quicker.  By publicizing our
> JSF and
> > Shale integration, we would open our framework up to a broader audience.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Shale? Shale would also be opened up to a
> broader,
> > Action-based audience and wouldn't be seen as a competitor to Struts
> Action.  It
> > wouldn't lose its autonomy or pure JSF support.  It would gain developer
> support
> > as more Action-based apps would start to use JSF and need Shale.
> >
> > How would this benefit Struts Tags? The tags could evolve quicker with
> faster
> > releases due to less code.  They would be free to add new marginal
> features
> > without worrying about bloating Struts.  This project would be analogous
> to
> > MyFaces Tomahawk as a library of components.
> >
> > How would this benefit the Struts community? Finally, Struts returns to
> its
> > roots as a single framework.  While pieces of it may be usable outside
> the
> > Action-based controller like Shale, it becomes the single place you go
> to solve
> > your application development needs.  The documentation would be unified
> and the
> > supporting committer community in step.  If you wanted the whole
> framework, you
> > download Struts.  If you just want one of the libraries, they are
> available ala
> > carte as well.
> >
> > This proposed change is primarily one of message and vision, and should
> have
> > minimal impact on current development activity.  With the next
> generation of
> > books and conferences in the works, I think it is important to develop a
> clear
> > message to the Struts community and minimize any confusion.
> >
> > The bottom line is we want Struts to be the place to go to make web
> development
> > easier, faster, with less hassles.  I think this proposal provides the
> vision to
> > make that happen.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > [1]
> http://www.oreillynet.com/onjava/blog/2006/06/isnt_rails_supposed_to_change.html
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

[Dakota Jack]

I am just trying to figure out how all the movement the last few years fits
into this supposed picture of reality.  How does Shale fit into this?  How
does WebWorks fit into this?  This is mere words without any inkling of the
reality of what happens on Struts.

On 6/22/06, Ted Husted <ted.husted@...> wrote:

>
> On 6/22/06, Michael Jouravlev <jmikus@...> wrote:
> > In the meantime I want to make sure that SAF1 will not be simply
> > removed from source repository just because SAF2 is the official
> > future.
>
> The future belongs to the volunteers willing to do the work. So long
> as we have volunteers to work on the SAF1 codebase, then the work will
> continue.
>
> Trying to kill a codebase is a marketplace ploy. As an ASF project,
> our mandate is *not* "conquer the marketplace". Our mandate is to
> create an environment where a community of volunteers can collaborate
> on open source software. If the product finds marketplace acceptance,
> that's icing. But, it is *not* the point of the exercise.
>
> -Ted.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

[schof-2]

I agree that its time for Shale to find a new home.  I actually think
that living here in the Struts project is holding Shale back more then
its helping at this point.  I also feel that Shale is still a little
ahead of its time.  JSF is still gaining acceptance and Shale builds
on JSF.

Imagine if Struts had come out shortly after JSP and Servlets.  JSF is
a major shift in the way we've been doing things.  It will take a
while for everyone to understand JSF enough before they are ready for
Shale.  Maybe JSF won't ever become widely accepted but if you have
looked at job postings lately you will see that its gaining ground.

Struts Action and Shale are competing frameworks.  There are two
camps.  At last year's Apache Con BOF I was shouted down for
expressing this obvious fact but now I think its become obvious to
almost everyone.

I don't know anyone who spends a lot of time in *both* of these camps
so why keep trying to force them to live together?  I'm in favor of an
amicable divorce as Craig has hinted at.  We can continue to work
together but lets create a formal split so we stop confusing the users
and ourselves.

Sean

On 6/22/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@...> wrote:

> On 6/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...> wrote:
>
> > What about a "generic" Faces project, like portals or ws ?
> > Apache Faces.
> >
> > To me Shale fits fine into that.
> >
> > There - in an apache faces land - is enough space for:
> > Myfaces
> > Tomahawk
> > Tobago
> > Shale
> > Sandbox (well, our sandbox)
> > and soon Trinidad (aka ADF Faces donation)
> >
> > WDYT ?
>
> As far as I can tell, you've just proposed adding Shale and renaming
> the MyFaces project to just 'Faces'. :)
>
> Everything you listed (except Shale) is already at MyFaces, or coming
> soon.  And I agree, Shale is a better fit with that list.
>
> --
> Wendy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

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

[Dakota Jack]

JSF is not a major shift.  It is just a way to let tools do the coding for
people who have difficulty with code.  It is also not ahead of its time,
unless it has been ahead of its time for a record length of time.  It is
just not a very good idea.  It is VB for Java web frameworks.  Only VB
oriented people will like it.  It is not positioned well for a market.  It
sure as h-e-l-l is not the next generation anything.

On 6/23/06, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@...> wrote:

>
> I agree that its time for Shale to find a new home.  I actually think
> that living here in the Struts project is holding Shale back more then
> its helping at this point.  I also feel that Shale is still a little
> ahead of its time.  JSF is still gaining acceptance and Shale builds
> on JSF.
>
> Imagine if Struts had come out shortly after JSP and Servlets.  JSF is
> a major shift in the way we've been doing things.  It will take a
> while for everyone to understand JSF enough before they are ready for
> Shale.  Maybe JSF won't ever become widely accepted but if you have
> looked at job postings lately you will see that its gaining ground.
>
> Struts Action and Shale are competing frameworks.  There are two
> camps.  At last year's Apache Con BOF I was shouted down for
> expressing this obvious fact but now I think its become obvious to
> almost everyone.
>
> I don't know anyone who spends a lot of time in *both* of these camps
> so why keep trying to force them to live together?  I'm in favor of an
> amicable divorce as Craig has hinted at.  We can continue to work
> together but lets create a formal split so we stop confusing the users
> and ourselves.
>
> Sean
>
> On 6/22/06, Wendy Smoak <wsmoak@...> wrote:
> > On 6/22/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@...> wrote:
> >
> > > What about a "generic" Faces project, like portals or ws ?
> > > Apache Faces.
> > >
> > > To me Shale fits fine into that.
> > >
> > > There - in an apache faces land - is enough space for:
> > > Myfaces
> > > Tomahawk
> > > Tobago
> > > Shale
> > > Sandbox (well, our sandbox)
> > > and soon Trinidad (aka ADF Faces donation)
> > >
> > > WDYT ?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, you've just proposed adding Shale and renaming
> > the MyFaces project to just 'Faces'. :)
> >
> > Everything you listed (except Shale) is already at MyFaces, or coming
> > soon.  And I agree, Shale is a better fit with that list.
> >
> > --
> > Wendy
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>
>

--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~