struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexandre Poitras" <alexandre.poit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FRIDAY] Re: has struts reached the saturation
Date Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:46:40 GMT
You keep saying Tapesty "does what JSF wants to do better than JSF
does it". I have looked into the two from a technical point of view
and I prefered JSF. How about giving some technical arguments for once
since you are complaing about logic fallacies? Is it because it isn't
a standard?

On 3/19/06, Dakota Jack <dakota.jack@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really do see these fallacies coming up at all.  The fallacies which
> typically come up are ones like: (1) argument ad hominem; (2) appeal to
> authority; (3) appeal to common practice; (4) appeal to emotion; (5) appeal
> to flattery; (6) appleal to popularity; (7) appeal to riducle; (8) biased
> sample.  These seem to have a life of their own.  Yours are, so far as I can
> see, never around.  Could you give an example from someone's submission on
> this list?
>
> Tapestry is as diverse as JSF and is in Apache as well as Struts, yet no one
> in Struts has ever complained about Tapestry.  (Tapestry, by the way, does,
> in my opinion, what JSF wants to do better than JSF does it.  If JSF should
> have tried to "horn in" for branding purposes, Tapestry wo0uld have been a
> better choice than Struts.)  However, if Craig had tried that, Howard
> Lewis-Ship would have made him go through what everyone else goes through,
> leading to JSF, inevitably, being show the door.
>
> This discussion is not about diversity.  That is Ted's pronouncement which
> is unrelated to the facts.  This discussion is about greed and branding and
> JSF's difficulties getting a toe hold in the mind and eye of the public,  I
> don't know of a single soul that does not wish JSF well when it is not
> pushed on someone.  Ted is right that committers on this list do what they
> want to do.  And, he is right that the committer clique decided to jump into
> bed with Craig and JSF.  There are committer feet sticking out all over
> under the covers of JSF and Shale.  This is not to promote diversity.  This
> was to serve themselves.  That is irresponsible to their elected position.
>
> Ted's idea that serving an open source community is one way to do your job
> is a big part of the problem, not a part of the solution, around here.
> Frequently we find developers coding away to make something in Struts fit
> what they need on the job rather than what Struts needs.  This has been
> especially prevalent the last year and a half.  Ted finds this perfect.  I
> think it is an abomination. The motivation for working in open source used
> to be more due to a desire to do top quality work, something many bright
> people were stopped from doing at work or otherwise frustrated about.  Now
> my job, I don't know about yours, does more exciting work than anyone at
> Struts even has a dream about.  Spring and other places are working on
> exciting, clean, real, stuff.  This attempt to sell JSF has turned Struts
> into slogging away at best.
>
> Struts, in my opinion, by tying itself to the think and the values of a
> commercial product has completely lost track of any sense of what is and
> what is not open source and what is community.  The entry to assisting on
> these things as a committer used to be merit based in the sense that you had
> some talent and could work with others.  Now it is a club based on balancing
> the voting blocs.  When Ted started, he could just jump in after showing
> that he was no fool, and start helping.  Those real open source days at
> Struts are over at this point.  Now any indication that you might actually
> make Struts grow or have something new and interesting to offer is a sure
> sign that you will be rejected.  Things have gotten so bad with this that
> the committers had to admit that they essentially had killed Struts and
> needed to get some help from some people who really had been doing open
> source work.  Those people will find, I predict, that they made a mistake
> coming here and that the Struts name was not worth it.
>
>
>
> On 3/19/06, Mark Lowe <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/19/06, Dakota Jack <dakota.jack@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Indeed!  Hoo hah!  Has anyone asked why Tapestry, which is just JSF done
> > > well in my opinion, is causing no difficulties on the Struts list?
> >
> > Diveristy is important, even those who don't agree with a darwinian
> > model seem to agree with this. Trying to push one size fits all would
> > seem to reflect an intollerance of ambiguity and perhaps demonstrates
> > more about an indiviual's personality traits than a genuine balanced
> > opinion. Who really cares that much if this or that framework is
> > superiour or not according to this or that principle, blue print
> > and/or design pattern. All will be ultimately evaluated in the cold
> > light of market forces (including available skills, development
> > time/cost, and maintainance).
> >
> > Here are some of the fallacies that keep comming up
> >
> > Affirmation of the consequent
> > if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less
> > and be higher quality,
> > the app was built according to x design pattern,
> > therefore the app cost less and is of higher quality.
> >
> > Denial of the antecedent
> > if i create software according to x design pattern is will cost less
> > and be higher quality,
> > my software didn't cost less and isn't high quality,
> > therefore it doesn't follow x design pattern.
> >
> > I actually agree that certain patterns help facilitate positive
> > outcomes, but attempting to propose that sucess and failure are merely
> > a function of choice of framework or the framework's strict adherence
> > to x design pattern is just plain silly. Albeit I've a foot (or
> > perhaps both feet) strongly in the silly camp because I'm engaging in
> > this sort of futile dialogue.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > >
> > > On 3/18/06, Paul Benedict <paul4christ79@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Ted's central principle that "darwin decides"
> > > >
> > > > This is a false principle in the terms of software development.
> > > > You don't have blind forces assembling the source code of Struts,
> > > > but real living people who can see what people want and choose
> > > > to write a solution for it. People decide in ASF, not Darwin.
> > > > If the Commiters want Struts to succeed into the future, they need
> > > > to always have passion and dedication to keep up with the demands
> > > > of the MVC market. Any philosophy which reduces Struts to "a gaggle of
> > > > engineers", I think, is a reductionist viewpoint; the problem is
> > > > much bigger than engineers just wanting to solve problems. That's
> > > > why other ASF projects like Tomcat and Tapestry are big winners and
> > > > continue to be big winners: a passion to to be successful with
> > > > whatever they craft, and a desire to see their projects be the best
> > > > at what they are in the industry. I totally see this passion in
> > Craig's
> > > > work - let's transfer some of that energy into Struts Action
> > Framework...
> > > > and it's finally happening (again) with WW2.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --- Mark Lowe <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've stayed out of this silly thread up until now, but i guess its
> > > > > time to be silly as well..
> > > > >
> > > > > Now I imagine that I'll get burned by micheal o'grady (dakota jack)
> > > > > for quoting this, but Ted's central principle that "darwin decides"
> > is
> > > > > a sound one. Its sound because it's also a principle that doesn't
> > > > > state that struts or anything is good because its better or because
> > he
> > > > > influenced a group of people to act in a certain way, but because
a
> > > > > technology survives the ecological pressures of the economy and
> > > > > projects that adopt such a approach remain profitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now natural selection doesn't produce perfection, even in biology,
> > but
> > > > > what you can be sure if is that any organism that lives today has
> > been
> > > > > begat by organisms that have survived "well enough". If best
> > technical
> > > > > solutions always won then betamax would have won the video wars.
> > > > >
> > > > > While struts is adopted and projects survive the ecological
> > pressures
> > > > > of engineering and economics it will probably survive. If a
> > different
> > > > > technoloy is adopted by other folk and they can knock out projects
> > for
> > > > > less then they will "probably" outlive struts or at least have a
> > > > > better chance.
> > > > >
> > > > > But all these abstract principles of perfection serve very little.
> > > > > From a darwinian perspective a ford motor car is more successful
> > than
> > > > > a ferrari. Now my understanding of the apache development that if
> > > > > solutions (commits, patches etc) are best when they are real world
> > > > > solutions, by facilitating these "adaptations" software is more
> > likey
> > > > > to survive ecological pressures because the adaptations are in
> > direct
> > > > > response to the enviornment in which these products find themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > The other important factor to have a healthy ecosystem that there
is
> > > > > never a single organism/technology that covers all niches. Its also
> > > > > true that in a single ecosystem there are never two organisms that
> > > > > occupy the same niche for very long. This is nature, and I don't
see
> > > > > the human activity of software development being very different.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could carry on, but I wont.. What the main point is that it
> > doesn't
> > > > > really matter what anyone thinks of this and that. What will survive
> > > > > will survive (excuse the tautology). Ferrari survives as does ford
> > > > > (albeit from selling the financial products to buy their goods) they
> > > > > occupy different niches. In the case of betamax and vhs only one
> > > > > survived because they occupy the same niche. All any of us can do
is
> > > > > try and knock out projects as best and as cheaply as possible, and
> > > > > darwin will decide the rest. Central to a good ecosystem is
> > diversity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/18/06, Steve Raeburn <sraeburn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I think the flaw in my analogy is that nobody will starve if
they
> > > > choose
> > > > > > not to eat at the Struts shelter :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
> > > > > > > Steve Raeburn wrote:
> > > > > > >> Let me try another analogy. Let's say you go down to
volunteer
> > at a
> > > > > > >> homeless shelter. You serve a few meals and wipe a
few tables a
> > > > > > >> couple of times a month. Do you become bound by any
> > responsibility
> > > > > > >> other than to show up and help? Do you become responsible
for
> > > > solving
> > > > > > >> the homeless problem? Should you feel obligated to
give someone
> > a
> > > > > > >> bed? Some people may feel they do have such a responsibility.
> > > > Others
> > > > > > >> won't. It's not my place to criticize a volunteer for
not
> > taking on
> > > > > > >> those additional responsibilities. I am just grateful
that
> > you've
> > > > > > >> just done a little bit to help out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a good analogy, it took me a while to figure out
why it
> > > > wasn't
> > > > > > > right for me with my position in mind (you had me doubting
> > myself
> > > > for
> > > > > > > a few hours before it hit me!)...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the volunteer does as you say, then I would agree, there
> > isn't
> > > > any
> > > > > > > added/assumed responsibility.  One would hope they have
their
> > own
> > > > > > > sense of responsibility and treat the homeless people kindly,
> > but
> > > > > > > that's about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However... if the volunteer does good work and is consequently
> > asked
> > > > > > > to become a permanent volunteer by an existing group of
> > permanent
> > > > > > > volunteers, and as a result is given some degree of authority
to
> > > > make
> > > > > > > decisions that will affect those that come to the shelter,
then
> > I
> > > > > > > think there is definitely a higher level of responsibility
to
> > that
> > > > > > > "community" of homeless, as well of course to the other
> > permanent
> > > > > > > volunteers. Again, as I've said all along, the degree of
extra
> > > > > > > responsibility I think is debatable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In your original analogy, the volunteer would be someone
like
> > > > me.  In
> > > > > > > my modified version, they would be a committer.  At least
in my
> > > > eyes,
> > > > > > > there is a difference.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Excellent analogy though, you definitely made me think
and
> > evaluate
> > > > my
> > > > > > > position, I appreciate that! :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Frank
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its
> > back."
> > > ~Dakota Jack~
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
> ~Dakota Jack~
>
>


--
Alexandre Poitras
Qu├ębec, Canada

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


Mime
View raw message