struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Frank W. Zammetti" <fzli...@omnytex.com>
Subject Re: has struts reached the saturation
Date Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:13:53 GMT
On Wed, March 15, 2006 10:40 am, Greg Reddin said:
> I find it ironic that people are bemoaning JSF for its commercial
> interests.

To be clear, *I* have not bemoaned the commercial interests.  In fact, I
said at least twice in this very thread that I have no problem with it. 
What I do bemoan, and only speaking for myself of course, is when that
fact is not acknowledged.  And as I said previously, maybe it HAS been
acknowledged and I just never saw it.  But just because we all know it
isn't enough.  I value honesty and openness above all else, and when I
feel like those ideals are not being met completely, even if relatively
beningnly as is the case in sales generally, it bugs me a bit.

> Second, look at who is represented on the Expert Group for JSR-127.
> Why would companies like Oracle, Borland, IBM, Macromedia, BEA, HP,
> etc. bother to participate in a such project if they weren't
> protecting their own interests?  Just look at how many tool-makers
> are present among the expert group.  Is it any wonder the resulting
> spec brings them the opportunity to cash in?  That's not even to
> mention all the other community-driven framework options that were in
> play when JSF was under development.  Personally, I think the
> resulting framework is not too bad considering.  I would've liked the
> Struts worldview to have been better represented - or maybe I am
> saying the "tool-less" developer's worldview.  But given all the
> players, I'm not surprised or disappointed with what we have.

Your saying that given the players involved, the outcome is completely
unremarkable.  I agree! :)  And further, I have no problem with it.

However, I think it is disingenuous for the players to not admit that
motivation after the fact and instead hype up the more positive
motivations.  Understandable?  Absolutely.  Expected?  Yes!  But
disingenuous too?  I think so.

And again, I have no doubt at all that those involved feel they developed
something good too.  I'm *not* saying they developed it only for their own
selfish benefit and had no other motivations.  Just the opposite.  They
felt they had some good ideas and wanted to develop them into a spec that
ALSO offered the opportunity to make money.  That's great, really and
truly it is!

All I'm saying is that you don't after the fact hype that goodness without
at least acknowledging the other motivation because that is, to some
degree, dishonest.  That's my view of it anyway.  To what degree is for
each person to decide though.  Some people will dismiss it as simply part
of marketing, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

> Now, directly to your point of commercial interests.  You say "JSF is
> a way for a lot of people to make money."  What is Java?  Do you
> think Sun developed Java as a "love offering" to the developer
> community?  Why do any of these organizations exist?  For that
> matter, why do I develop software?  Is it because I've found the
> meaning of life or simply because it's better than working at a
> rendering plant?  Well, for me it's somewhere in the middle.  But for
> organizations like Sun, Oracle, or BEA, it's all about the
> economics.  I'm not talking about the individuals that work at these
> companies.  I'm talking about the organizations themselves.  At the
> organizational level, they are solely about increasing financial
> gain.  And I'm not saying that's bad.  If they weren't they would
> quickly go out of business.  People start companies to grow
> business.  People start non-profit organizations (like ASF) for the
> betterment of mankind.  So I guess I find the argument of commercial
> interests to be completely irrelevant.

You've just described capitalism, and I agree 100%!... with my one
reiterated caveat: admit that's the case.

> I like some aspects of JSF and I dislike others.  For some tasks I
> find it vastly superior to Struts.  For others I find it difficult to
> use.  Now *maybe* if JSF was developed in a community instead of a
> committee it would be less intrusive and more useful.  But that's one
> of the reasons I have hope for Shale.  It starts with the foundation
> of the JSF standard.  It then builds on the foundation in a community-
> centric way and that has the possibility of resulting in something
> very useful.

Interestingly, this whole thread has been purely theoretical/philosophical
:)  Which is fine, I think these types of discussions are valuable every
now and again.  From a purely *technical* standpoint though, as I've said
before, I'm not at this point a fan of JSF.  That being said, I'm in no
way dismissing it forever.  In fact, I look forward to the next major rev
as I hear a great many things are being addressed that may well make it
more paletable to me.  Where it came from and the motivations behind it
are at this point largely just a historical discussion.  Where it is and
where its going is far more interesting to me :)

> Greg

Frank

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


Mime
View raw message