struts-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexandre Poitras" <>
Subject Re: has struts reached the saturation
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:11:17 GMT
Here is more information Dakota :

"Because the popular MVC framework Struts implements a combined Front
Controller and Application Controller, some people assume that this is
what is meant by the MVC pattern in the context of a web application.
For the same reason, many descriptions of the Front Controller pattern
on the web do not draw the distinction between a Front Controller and
a Application Controller."

On 3/20/06, Frank W. Zammetti <> wrote:
> Jonathan Revusky wrote:
> > A third point that I must make in this context is that, though, in the
> > above, I am criticizing the "electoral democracy" aspects of this, I
> > actually don't subscribe to the idea that an open source project is a
> > one man-one vote democracy of any sort anyway. For example, in the
> > FreeMarker project, the opinion of somebody who has made some tiny
> > contribution to the code (and is thus a "committer") cannot be
> > considered equal to mine, when simply most of the current core code base
> > was written by me. And thus, the idea that this person's vote is equal
> > to mine strikes me as absurd. It would be equally absurd if I joined
> > another project, and after making a nominal contribution, considered
> > that my vote was equal to that of someone who had written, say, 80% of
> > the code.
> You might be interested in the bylaws I wrote for Java Web Parts:
> Most importantly in the context of this discussion is the fact that
> ANYONE who contributes AT ALL can vote and HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNT.
> Non-contributors can vote too, but are non-binding (I am considering
> changing this).
> I have a weighting system for how peoples' votes count... "contributors"
> count as 1, "developers" (aka committers) count as 1.5 and
> "administrators" (aka the PMC) count as 2.  The only requirement is that
> a person be subscribed to the mailing list, since all voting takes place
> there.  There is a formula used to calculate the final result of a vote,
> and simple majority carries the vote.
> By the way, the definition of "contributor" is "anyone that contributes
> to JWP".  I probably should refine that definition a bit :)  But, the
> point is that I wanted it to be a very low barrier of entry, so even if
> you just point out a batch of spelling errors in the documentation, you
> would be considered a contributor and get a counted vote.
> I bet some of the people on the contributors list don't even know they
> have a vote! :)  In truth though, we have yet to have an actual vote on
> anything, so I suppose it's all untested.
> The voting system is perhaps a bit convoluted, but I tried to write it
> in such a way that no one person, INCLUDING ME, could grab control of
> the project.  There is also veto power on all votes, and more
> importantly, an override provision... for instance, while I as an
> Administrator can veto any vote, either of the other two developers can
> call for an override vote.  I of course cannot vote in the override
> vote, and if my veto is overridden, that's the final word, I cannot
> override the veto.
> I have no doubt there are flaws in my system, but my goal was to give
> everyone a voice, and to ensure that the will of the majority would be
> done no matter what.
> Frank
> --
> Frank W. Zammetti
> Founder and Chief Software Architect
> Omnytex Technologies
> AIM: fzammetti
> Yahoo: fzammetti
> MSN:
> Java Web Parts -
> Supplying the wheel, so you don't have to reinvent it!
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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