Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of ted.husted@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.233 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=uak6Nm2pcK95cd4M+HMJVzdUx9Ks7+SrbHI3QVmcWp3jErCMN7IkhinTzVylRDSeYx90xEYxiNn6+7vh8ruSdWy+zfkV3gkjEhspcGVRziny7ZJRLBL/xm05boPfAkelt8crO067bk+5EYD2r5N0duFViSw42AJ0DePZX1rQVes=
Message-ID: <8b3ce3790612090716j6f3d4665lbc33af483e0b519c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:16:33 -0500
From: "Ted Husted" <husted@apache.org>
Sender: ted.husted@gmail.com
To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: The Positives Of JSF
In-Reply-To: <4EA7D28C008E914FADB1143EA6F01AF203FFE873@tbbnfms1.tbbgl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <AccagcmJ/OIGeNZQS8uj0Nd4NW6zdgAAlhjw>
	 <4EA7D28C008E914FADB1143EA6F01AF203FFE873@tbbnfms1.tbbgl.com>

On 12/8/06, Nebinger, David <dnebinger@tbbgl.com> wrote:
> Are they still working on 2.0?

Yep. We're about to release the third beta.

* http://struts.apache.org/2.x/

> I've heard that JSF was to be considered 2.0,

Yes, it was considered, but not everyone was ready to make the
paradigm jump from action-based to component-based.

> I've heard  that it  was to be abandoned for Shale,

No, that was never the case. The Struts PMC chose not to adopt Shale
as Struts 2. We hosted it as a subproject for a time, but now Shale is
an Apache Project in its own right.

* http://shale.apache.org/

> and I'm aware that there is a core set of
> struts-lovers that  would prefer incremental updates to struts.

Yes, that's true. There are tens of thousand of Struts 1 applications
in production, and some people don't want to start over yet. Struts
1.3.6 is also about to be released. There are also extensions like
Strecks that add Java 5 features, like annoncations, to Struts 1. Both
Struts 1 ans 2 also work well with technologies like Ajax.


> All I know is that we have projects underway right now.  We needed a modern framework
> that was built under the modern IOC pattern.  JSF fits; struts (in it's current incarnation)
> does not.

I'm not advocating that anyone put aside JSF or MyFaces (I helped
bring MyFaces into the ASF), but, to give the devil its due, the
current incanation of Struts 2 is in fact "built under the modern IOC
pattern". Struts 2 also offers

* Client side support
* No required inheritence
* IOC capabilities
* Testability

and other goodies like plugin support.

Of course, there are many good reasons to choose JSF. The top three in
my book would be

1 Bundled with Sun's Java distribution
2 Supported by IDEs
3 Compatible with GUI architectures

A professional chooses the right tool for the right job. In some
circumstnaces, that's going to be JSF and MyFaces, or Shale. Other
times, in other circumstances, it may be Struts 1 or Struts 2.

Technically, all of these frameworks, along with ASP.NET, are roughly
equivalent. What makes the difference is the people who use the
frameworks. The pointy-haired bosses don't like to hear that, because
they want developers to be replaceable commodities and frameworks to
be silver bullets. But, the truth is, web development is still a
skilled profession, and not a matter of just clicking buttons in a
GUI.

-Ted.