struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Revusky <>
Subject Re: [FRIDAY] Re: has struts reached the saturation
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:29:57 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 3/22/06, Jonathan Revusky <> wrote:
>>Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> maps to a PMC, which maps to a coding community, not to
>>>a codebase.
>>Henri, I feel I should give you a bit of end-user feedback. I am not
>>active in any projects, but, obviously, it happens quite
>>frequently that I go visit the front page of a given project,
>>to check it out for whatever needs I have at that moment.
>>FYI, when I visit, I am not there for the PMC or whatever
>>ASF bureaucratic construct. I'm there for the code.
>>In general, when I visit the front page of a project, I like to be able
>>to figure out what the thing is fairly quickly. This is definitely a
>>problem with Struts currently.
> So that's a website issue ie) how to join/find the community rather
> than an issue in how the community itself is structured.
> Do you have suggestions to improve the Struts website so that things
> are more clear? There's not a website at the ASF that couldn't be made
> a bit clearer.

Well, just go to and look at it and imagine 
that you don't know anything about what struts is. I put it to you that 
the reader who hits your front page should not be supposed to know what 
the thing is.

What is strange about it is that whoever wrote the page tacitly 
recognizes that it is a confused jumble and spends most of the page 
trying to rationalize it. "Why two frameworks?" followed by "Why so many 
subprojects?" What is also patently obvious is that the two rhetorical 
questions are posed on the page, and never, AFAICS, answered satisfactorily.

And then the text there just assumes all kinds of insider knowledge that 
the reader of the front page really IMHO should not be assumed to know.

Now, you can go look at the page, Henri, and maybe you think it's okay. 
If you do think the whole thing is really A-OK, then we have a 
difference of opinion. Here is the basis of it:

Who is the intended audience for this text?

I guess we have different answers for that.

(I could almost characterize it as that the author's intended audience 
in "Why two frameworks?" and so on is himself!)

I don't think this is a problem of website organization. The website 
problem _reflects_ a deeper problem.


Jonathan Revusky
lead developer, FreeMarker project,

>>>If Shale, Struts 1.x and Struts 2.x are being developed by the same
>>>community -
>>Nah, my understanding is that this isn't really the case. There is a
>>Struts 1.x which is basically in maintenance mode. There is a Struts
>>Action Framework 2.x which is basically Webwork (until recently a
>>completely separate *competing* product developed outside of ASF) and
>>that's a completely separate team at the moment.
> Right, so two communities merging. This is all good - it's probably
> natural that you'll see the old hands maintaining the 1.2/1.3 releases
> instead of the Webwork guys, but who knows. Plus there will be new
> committers, maybe some who just focus on 1.3 because the community
> wants to keep it alive.
>>And Shale is something
>>with a completely different approach, and I assume, has a separate team.
> Team-wise, everybody in Struts has access to all the code. They're
> also using the same mailing list, and are components in the same
> Bugzilla project. All great ways to keep the community together.
> Looking at viewcvs quickly; I immediately see overlap. People
> committing to shale who are committing to action-1; and the same for
> action-2. There will definitely be a focus for each person - but it's
> easy to see cross-pollination at work.
> Struts is a cool community. The users are actively involved, in terms
> of answering and asking; people obviously care about the community -
> as shown by both your and Dakota's questions and by the desire of the
> committers to work to keep things together; and there's an active
> future happening plus legacy being actively maintained by both
> contributors and committers.
> Yes, shale and action might move apart as the months/years go by and
> at some point they might want to separate, but right now it doesn't
> look like an unhealthy situation to me. These things tend to evolve
> quite happily - someone like yourself raises a question of whether
> it's time to make an evolutionary leap, and the community responds. In
> the case of this thread I think it's not time for the leap.
> Hen

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message