struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexandru Popescu" <the.mindstorm.mailingl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SAF2 JSF Support (was Re: Does Struts ...)
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:16:52 GMT
And to clarify something that I might not have expressed well: I am
not against unifying everything, but to me it looks it will be a lot
much harder to make things very simple for the users.

If you think this can be done with the big-package-solves-everything
approach, than I am oke with it.

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.
---
(http://themindstorms.blogspot.com)



On 6/21/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all I am not sure why so many thread forked from the initial
> discussion. This will make a lot more difficult to figure out what was
> already said, and towards what conclusion we are moving.
>
> For your comments my answer is simple:
>
> that's exactly the opposite of what and how RoR has gain its popularity.
>
> In RoR you simply write:
>
> scaffold :category
>
> and here it goes: you already have a draft screen for your Category
> (or even better using the generate script you get a full generated
> draft to start working on). Than you just start the embedded Mongrel
> server and here it goes again: is alive! (all this is taking about 1
> minute) (WebWork has already introduced something similar for the last
> parts).
>
> In Struts: you will have to decide what theme to use, configure what
> theme to use, determine what dependencies are needed and than start
> building everything from scratch.
>
> Can we agree which approach is simpler?
>
> ./alex
> --
> .w( the_mindstorm )p.
>
>
> On 6/21/06, Ted Husted <ted.husted@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/21/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > WebWork has tried to adapt to this new approach proposed by RoR. And
> > > it was nice to see it. We may have a few more ideas to make it even
> > > simpler in the near future. But this will not work with the
> > > big-solve-all approach.
> >
> > I think what Don is suggesting continues the WebWork approach. In WW2,
> > whatever could be pushed back to XWork was pushed back to XWork,
> > making WW itself as light as it can be. Instead of building an
> > expression language, XW and WW adopt and adapt OGNL. Instead of
> > building a templating system, WW first adopted Velocity and then
> > FreeMarker. Instead of building in something like Tiles, WW recommends
> > SiteMesh.
> >
> > Right now, the UI tags are not like XWork, or OGNL, or FreeMarker, or
> > SiteMesh, they are part-and-parcel of WW. So Don is suggesting we
> > start to make them standalone, like Tiles, so that, eventually, they
> > could be used by another framework, like, say, Spring MVC.
> >
> > Meanwhile, to better solve AJAX, we are talking about multiple AJAX
> > themes. I believe Don is suggesting that we approach JSF integration
> > like we are approach AJAX integration. Make it something like a theme,
> > that an application could elect to use with WW, the way an application
> > might elect to use AJAX.
> >
> > Once SAF2 is able to front JSF components as easily as it can front
> > AJAX compents or the UI Tags, then applications would have the option
> > of mixing and matching view technologies, or just sticking with one.
> >
> > Even now, we have the option of using UI tags with JSP or FreeMarker,
> > and mixing technologies in the same application. The question is
> > whether we can make JSF more of the same.
> >
> > -Ted.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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


Mime
View raw message