Grokbase Groups Struts dev June 2006

[Struts-dev] Does Struts really need two frameworks? (long)

Dakota Jack
Jun 22, 2006 at 10:29 am
You cannot marry a pig and a fox, Don. Let's get honest. The only thing
that is ever going to satisfy Craig is to get the Struts name for JSF,
period. Let him go ahead and try to make it on his own. That won't work
and its failure will keep JSF from continuing its trampy attempt to
integrate with every Tom, Dick and Harry in town.
On 6/21/06, Don Brown wrote:

Craig, thanks for your honesty and candor. I know this is a delicate
topic, and I appreciate you approaching the topic openly.

A couple of clarifications:

1. I'm not proposing Shale _ever_ depend on Action 2, only that they
should work well together. In fact, I mean to start including Shale in
Action 2's web examples.

2. In a "pure JSF" environment, don't you think there is value in
using an Action 2 controller to handle things like JSON/XML remote
services? I'm finding more and more my Struts Actions return JSON
rather than HTML. This is how I see us working together even if you
don't use Action 2's JSF support.

3. Overlap areas like navigation, validation, messages, etc., are only
waiting on attention to be resolved. When using the Action 2
navigation, it is my intention that the default configuration removes
overlap as much as possible. You'd use Action 2 navigation rather than
the NavigationHandler. Validations could be defined in the page or
could automatically be created from existing Action 2 validations (XML
or annotations), similarly to how Seam creates validations from
annotations. Messages integration is easily resolved by creating a
backing bean that provides messages using Action 2 apis. I fully
believe it is possible to merge Action 2 and JSF into a web application
in a seamless manner.

I guess what I'm saying is you could view this "overlap" in a negative
or positive light. I think the Struts project should put forth a
"preferred" approach, used in our quickstarts and tutorials. However,
that doesn't mean that we should force developers into our way of
thinking. Having options isn't necessarily bad.

At this point, I really don't see a valid either/or framework approach

- If your application needs to be built by tool-dependent programmers,
pure JSF is definitely the way to go.

- If you prefer the pure JSF approach for other reasons, use a pure
JSF framework, but perhaps use Action 2 to organize and deliver JSON/XML

- If your application has a lot of Struts developers or stateless
pages that need pure speed, but in sections you want to use fancy JSF
components, use Action 2 as the controller and sprinkle in JSF where

- If you like Action-based approaches and don't need/like JSF
components, just use Action 2.

I hope we can agree that each of the above situations and solutions is
valid, and make that our common ground. You may prefer the first
couple, others the latter two. As a Struts project, we need to be of
one mind in at least some things, and it is my hope Action 2's recent
JSF integration attempts can help get us there. I put this proposal out
to help bring us together, not precipitate a "divorce" :)


Craig McClanahan wrote:
The short answer is that no, as long as I have any say in it, Shale will
morph to be dependent on Action2. SAF2 is too heavyweight and too
complexfor my tastes (see below for more about that remark), besdes the
that it implements a lot of stuff that is redundant to what is already part
of JSF (and therefore Shale) that -- from the perspective of a new
application deveoper -- just complicates the picture instead of

Don't get me wrong ... SAF2 is a very elegant evolution of the
action-oriented controller paradigm. It's the paradigm that I have a
problem with.

The complete longer answer will need to wait until I finish my analysis of
what Don did (but thanks for addressing WW-1357 right away!) to improve the
support for JSF components in SAF2. But the bottom line is that, in
2006, I
have philosophical differences with action oriented frameworks (in the
of what we see available today) as the right long term answer to designing
new Java based web applications -- Struts or WebWork or whatever. It's
wonderful that you are looking out for the migration use case, where people
need to add a few JSF components to their existing Struts or WebWork based
apps. No matter what happens, I can be comforted by the fact that people
wanting to add a bit of JSF component wizardry to their existing apps will
have that option.

But the end result of an SAF2 + JSF based application is pretty much the
same, from an architectural viewpoint, as the result of a Struts 1.x +
Struts-Faces integration library + JSF based application. You end up using
only part of JSF (the UI components part ... valuable, yes, but not the
whole story). Worse, though, you end up with this wierd mismash of a front
controller in front of a front controller (mashed teogether in the
interceptor chain in the SAF2 implementation, but the same
Leading to continual decisions during the maintenance phase of a
project ... do I add a new page via action-framework navigation, or JSF
navigation? Do I use the action framework's validation scheme, or
JSFs? Am
I forced to depend on Spring or whatever for dynamically created beans with
dependency injection, or can I rely on the fact that JSF already
provides a
basic facility for this? Red Flags time!

Indeed, one could make the same argument Don makes about consolidation, but
in favor of adopting JSF as the fundantal controller architecture, and
providing a full-up JSF implementation (probably based on MyFaces) that
incorporated XWork interceptors on each lifecycle phase (see SHALE-106 and
SHALE-136). At least you could test such a thing for compliance with the
JSF spec, and not have to hope that the folks that are utilizing some of
more critical JSF extension points are doing so in a manner that is
going to
be compatible with "pure JSF" component libraries and frameworks.

To me, it does not make sense for a framework to say "I adopt JSF" but then
have *redundant* implementations of things like validation and
and depdency injection and expression evaluation and .... This is fine for
a migration story, but for new development it needlessly complicates the
architecture of the resulting aplications. JSF already supports
(pluggable, if you want something completely different). Why should I be
forced into SAF2 Results? JSF already supports a validation framework
(easily extensible to client side validation, see Shale's feature in this
respect). Why should I limit myself to what SAF2 offers? JSF has managed
beans for basic dependency injection (including the abiltity to inject
into a particular scope, which Spring is only now supporting in 2.x).
Why should I go back to a single execute method (plus prepare() if you
implement Preparable) as the only application events an action ever hears
about, versus the four supported by Shale's ViewController? Why should
I be
required (or encouraged) to use Spring even if I don't need all the fancy
stuff like constructor injection that Spring provides (which, by the way
"works fine lasts a long time" with pure JSF already)? To say nothing of
the fact that not using managed beans means you are passing on the resource
injection facilities already available in Java EE 5. To say even more
nothing about the future ... keep an eye on things like JSR 299 if you want
to see where the "mainstream" market is going ( i.e. not necessarily what
the geeks like, but where the market opportunity for consultants is
going to
be the best :-).

Personally, I can look back with a lot of pride at the longevity of the
MVC-oriented concepts that Struts 1.x brought to the web application space.
Sic years in Internet time is FOREVER! But, for me, it's time to move on.
I care passionately about a migration path for existing Struts-based apps,
and the current SAF2 approach is acceptable for that (although it's
certainly feasible to do better on "migrate to JSF' than "migrate to SAF2"
for current Struts 1.x users). You won't hear any whining about the
fundamentals from me of SAF2 -- although I reserve the right to comment on
the details :-)

But, for new developers, I prefer to think of action-oriented frameworks as
"been there, done that". The understanding of O-O concepts, and the
willingness to code things in configuration files (I *hope* you guys are
thinking about annotations for things like Preparable :-) you need to
leverage all the cool stuff that SAF2 includes is far too limiting for my
vision of what Java as a platform needs to do in the future. I want to
focus on attracting a much larger audience of developers who are *not* O-O
professionals, whose idea of "code reuse" is cut-n-paste, and who might
actually prefer to use tools (SAF2's fundamental architecture is pretty
untoolable, even if someone were motivated to spend the effort to build
tooling around it). For the O-O bigots around this mailing list, I can
comfort in the fact that the audience I'm interested in is *many times* the
size of the audience that will actually appreciate the technical
elegance in

Or, if you want it all in one sentence: for new developers, I would much
prefer to compete with SAF2 than to cooperate with it.

If that means a (hopefully amicable) divorce, then so be it. SAF2 is a
better (technical) approach to the problems that Struts 1.x targeted, but
the world has moved beyond those problems. I'm no longer interested in
playing on that particular playground.

Craig McClanahan
On 6/20/06, Don Brown wrote:

As Shale and Action zero in on their first GA release, I don't think
it is
late to ask the question, "Does Struts really need two frameworks?" We
been putting out the message, "two frameworks, one community", for
a year
now, but I still sense a lot of confusion and even rejection from the
community. The problem is for our whole history, Struts was a single
what you went to if you wanted to structure your web application
Model2 principles. Our attempts to turn Struts into an umbrella
feel, have failed.

Struts Action 2 is seen, by some, as a simple rebranding of WebWork 2,
to be
honest, it really is at this stage. Struts Shale is seen as

milking the Struts brand name. While these opinions are most extremely
expressed by our more radical members, they are also held to some
by some
very smart, sensible people [1].

From a Struts committer perspective, Wendy made a good point to me the
day saying that Struts lacks the single purpose or vision of most Open
projects. Despite our recent attempts to find common ground, Shale and
are still positioned as competing frameworks with no overlap. This
leads to conflicts that suck the joy out of Open Source development.

Recently, Struts Action 2 unified the programming models of
component-based development by allowing the developer to adopt an
approach for an application, yet use JSF components and abilities where
We have always said the desired end state would be to return Struts
unified framework, and I think we should jump on this chance now.

I propose Struts return to its roots as a unified framework through
building on
three libraries to make JSF and pure Servlet/JSP development
easier. Namely,
I propose the Struts project to be the following subprojects, each with
own release cycle:

- Framework: Struts 2
- Libraries: Struts Action, Shale and Struts Tags

Struts would be the single framework the world would see. It would
support for Action-based, JSF-based, and hybrid applications. Its
would promote the Struts Action controller as the preferred entry
even if
only to be used for AJAX services. Its JSF library, Struts Shale,
could be used with a regular FacesServlet. JSF components and Struts
be equals when describing how to tackle the View of an application.

Struts Action would be the core library driving Struts 2, replace
This library would be everything now known as Struts Action 2, but
UI components. We would aim for a solid Action-based library
of the
view, much like Action 1.x. When we talked about what an Action JSR
like, this would be it.

Struts Shale would be repositioned as a library, which I think is a
A framework to me is a comprehensive, one-stop-shop solution to
application. A library is a collection of independent features that
be used
in piecemeal. Therefore, I think a library is a better definition for
collection of JSF extensions. While Struts Action would definitely
Shale, it would continue to be able to be used with pure JSF

Struts Tags would be the WebWork UI components, a library of re-usable,
stateless tags that can be used in Velocity, Freemarker, or JSP. They
include current and future AJAX tags. These tags would most likely
to Struts Action 2, but not necessarily.

How would this benefit Struts Action? By splitting of the tags, we can
focus on
the core project and get it out the door quicker. By publicizing our
Shale integration, we would open our framework up to a broader
How would this benefit Struts Shale? Shale would also be opened up to a
Action-based audience and wouldn't be seen as a competitor to Struts
Action. It
wouldn't lose its autonomy or pure JSF support. It would gain
as more Action-based apps would start to use JSF and need Shale.

How would this benefit Struts Tags? The tags could evolve quicker with
releases due to less code. They would be free to add new marginal
without worrying about bloating Struts. This project would be
MyFaces Tomahawk as a library of components.

How would this benefit the Struts community? Finally, Struts returns to
roots as a single framework. While pieces of it may be usable outside
Action-based controller like Shale, it becomes the single place you go
your application development needs. The documentation would be unified
and the
supporting committer community in step. If you wanted the whole
framework, you
download Struts. If you just want one of the libraries, they are
available ala
carte as well.

This proposed change is primarily one of message and vision, and should
minimal impact on current development activity. With the next
books and conferences in the works, I think it is important to develop
message to the Struts community and minimize any confusion.

The bottom line is we want Struts to be the place to go to make web
easier, faster, with less hassles. I think this proposal provides the
vision to
make that happen.



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

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

"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions