struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Kravets <akrav...@kligerweiss.com>
Subject Re: Struts 2.0 or Struts 0.0? [or Struts 1.42?]
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:34:54 GMT
Ted, Graig,

So was Struts Shale made to make programmer's life easier in creating 
Web Applications using MVC Framework? I've read some posts/blogs where 
people who've used Struts and now use Tapestry say that they will never 
go back to Struts again. Is this what Struts Shale tries to change/disprove?

Ted Husted wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:03:09 -0500, Alex Kravets wrote:
>  
>
>> So what do you guys think?
>> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=31509
>>    
>>
>
>An important clarification we'll make to the FAQ is that "by doing our job right" we mean
"not break backward compatibility" in the ongoing 1.x series. 
>
>There's more than a few things that people want to do with Struts 1.x yet. We're approaching
Struts 1.3, and already, the Milestone page [http://struts.apache.org/milestones.html] is
looking forward to Struts 1.6. 
>
>If need be, we can go on to Struts 1.42 or Struts 1.2025. If there's interest, there could
be another five, ten, or fifty years of Struts 1.x development. 
>
>A year ago, we talked about a Struts 2.x revolution to give us a clean start on the codebase.
But, most everyone wanted to evolve the Struts 1.x codebase instead. 
>
>So, that's what we are doing: evolving Struts 1.x, step by step, innovation by innovation,
deprecation by deprecation :) 
>
>If we never break backward compatibility, and we never start a new codebase, then we never
need to roll the major version number. 
>
>Meanwhile, another potentially great framework has come along: Shale. Like Struts, Shale
is MVC web framework, but it doesn't share any code or architectural hallmarks with Struts
1.x. We could call it Struts 2.x, but we could also fork Maverick, Spring MVC, Tapestry, or
WebWork and call any of those Struts 2.x, if that's what the community wanted. 
>
>But, as near as we can tell, that's not what they community wants. The volunteers are
showing by their commits that we want to evolve Struts 1.x and, at the same time, also work
on Shale 1.x. 
>
>As someone mentioned elsewhere: different strokes for different folks: different technologies
for different requirements. 
>
>People wanted to do both and proved it with their commits. So both is what we are doing
:)
>
>And, if someone comes up with a third thing, based on dynamic ECMA Script or something,
maybe we'll do that too. :)
>
>-Ted.
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>  
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message