struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Revusky <>
Subject Re: friday ha ha
Date Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:05:21 GMT
Alexandre Poitras wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Jonathan Revusky <> wrote:
>>Dave Newton wrote:
>>>Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>>>>[...] rather than trying to modernize/refactor it forward
>>>>From a developer's standpoint I'm not even sure how I'd go about
>>>refactoring the existing Struts 1.x codebase...
>>>As an example, I've always been pissy about the Action being tightly
>>>coupled to the servlet spec., returning something only useful in the
>>>context of Struts 1.x, etc. (Who hasn't?! :)
>>>Okay, how do I remove that dependency? Just thinking out loud, so parts
>>>of this will be dumb.
>>>- App functionality already moved into injectable objects
>>>- Change request processor to put params etc. into an "action context"
>>>(just a map?) rather than directly accessing HttpServletRequest (or its
>>>- Change action processing to accept a different type of forward (just a
>>>string, no-brainer?)
>>>- Minor validation rework to accept POJOs rather than ActionForms
>>>- Pluggable request processing/path handling
>>>- ...etc.
>>>I dunno... Sure looks a lot like stuff that already exists. I wouldn't
>>>rewrite/refactor it either; I would start over.
>>>Now, it might be feasible to write a wrapper around an already-existing
>>>framework (or minorly tweaked one) to process existing struts
>>>code/configs/Actions etc. and this might provide an incremental
>>>migration path, but...
>>Well, there all these issues, and yeah, I guess they could make you and
>>other people shudder. I mean, among the existing Struts committers there
>>is no stomach apparently to try to do anything significant with the
>>Struts 1.x codebase and they just prefer to either start something new
>>(Shale) or bring in a previously competing codebase (Webwork) and work
>>on that.
>>But the real key point I am wondering about is this: if the existing
>>Struts developers have no plans for developing the Struts 1.x codebase,
>>what is the justification for not letting people who want to work on
>>that (independently of whether this reflects good taste on their part or
>>not) come in and work on it?
> Well why don't you do it yourself and stop BUGGING the users of this
> list so they can stop receiving your "How great I am" emails. 

I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. I have no 
recollection of singing my own praises in these emails and even if I 
was, it would not make any arguments I am presenting any more or less valid.

Isn't it the case, Alexandre, that you are starting with this kind of 
incoherent personal attack because your counter-arguments to what I am 
saying are kind of thin? (At best...)

> You
> should really check out this Apache license which from what I heard
> give you the right to evolve Struts yourself and this great site
> called which give you a free CVS repository access.

It is true that anybody could take the Struts 1.x codebase and fork it 
and put it on However, the problem is that, once you're 
talking about a non-canonical forked version, you are basically in the 
position of shouting into the wilderness. The exact same work will only 
get a fraction (a *very* small one) of the attention and usage that it 
would if it were part of the canonical Struts project on

If the Struts developers have a certain vision of how Struts 1.x should 
evolve, and you disagree with them, then, okay, maybe you have to go 
fork off your own version. But why should someone like Phil or anybody 
else who maybe wants to do something with Struts 1.x have to fork off a 
separate project on sourceforge when the Struts developers themselves 
have no intention of doing *anything* with the Struts 1.x codebase anyway?

Surely you see my point, don't you? Have you thought about this?

> Seriously, I have never seen a guy more in love with himself.

Well, if that's really the case, you should get out more.

But seriously, the above is irrelevant. It does not invalidate any 
argument I have  made. It does not reinforce any argument you have made 
(if you have in fact made any argument, that is...). It is simply 
ad-hominem drivel. Do you think it really makes sense to behave this way 
in a professional forum? You know, there is a permanent electronic 
archive of these discussions.

Jonathan Revusky
lead developer, FreeMarker project,

>>Given the basic parameters of the situation, what would there possibly
>>be to lose?
>>Jonathan Revusky
>>lead developer, FreeMarker project,
>>>(But an interesting *shudder* I'll admit... *ponder*)
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> --
> Alexandre Poitras
> Qu├ębec, Canada

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

View raw message