Comments on: No… More… Jars…

By: Shahed

Shahed — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:51:11 +0000

If your colleague mentioned in the article, is the same Marco Tolesano I once worked with, it would be great to hear his view on this subject.

I recall him being a great fan of Spring / Hibernate / Inversion of Control etc

By: nullpointerexception

nullpointerexception — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:59:08 +0000

anybody that knee-jerks and starts defending their favorite API in response to reading this post is the exact reason we have this problem in the first place….after you have been around the block a a couple times, kiddies, you will understand.

and i REALLY like the lemmy reference (you kiddies wont get that one either).

By: Stefano

Stefano — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:23:19 +0000

I think it’s the problem of everything in software…. a lot of people is programmig for Windows Native because they know it’s here for stay…. days ago i read something interesting about open source project…. it’s a “Natural Selection” the good project got critical mass and grow…. the bad project disappear with no support…. for example Struts & EJB are evolving to survive the new ecosystem…. struts is going to merge with webworks and EJB3 are now Pojo-based like Hibernate…
It’s up to the developer to build a system that’s not heavily dependent to a particular framework…. even if a project is based on struts… i can still have jsp without it….

PS I think Struts was great… until u have to manage all the Bloat-ware needed…. now i hope i can use Tapestry/Hivemind in my projects…

PPS about XML – config files…. a lot of people/projects abused of it….. now EJB3 use a very friendly & clear annotations… i hope that a lot of other developer follow that way!!!
Bye and sorry for being so Long!!!

By: mb

mb — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:34:41 +0000

Well when I run a project as manager I will make certain that my programmers use framework what a lot of people know… It much easier to get new people in and get them up to speed… home grown frameworks can’t give the support like struts or spring… my customers want a solution they are not buying a framework!

By: Ivan

Ivan — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:05:19 +0000

I hate xml for this reason. On one hand, Java is such a programming success, that abstraction *CAN* be taken to a config only level, but the IDE’s can’t follow it there.

A great feature to have for Java SE7 would be compiler checked XML configuration. Then maybe it wouldn’t suck so much.

By: rsr

rsr — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:01:17 +0000

I like Struts framework and I also hate it! Struts 1.1’s general idea is indeed good. It does save a lot of complex coding . I always keep my Struts at the barest minimum level. The trouble comes when people extend things unnecessarily. I very much wish that the comunity knew what is good enough and just leave it there instead of perpetually trying to ‘improve’ and in effect spoiling things.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:48:04 +0000

My first thought is that by skipping out on these frameworks, you’ll lose the power of “With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.”

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 15:24:46 +0000

Spot on with that description of my typical approach to finding out about a new framework! I’ve definitely been thru that loop many times.
And often the framework is basically just too much for the fairly simple request/response requirements of the proposed webapp. I’ve been thru a whole thing recently trying to get Spring and Hibernate going when I just realized in a flash that I don’t NEED any of that stuff: so I went back to Struts Classic and it worked. What I needed was a “good enough” framework, not the “perfect” framework.

By: Abhinay

Abhinay — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:09:39 +0000

The first time you use a framework, yes it is tedious and time consuming. But once you know it, next time it will be faster to use.

And I would love to see Struts being coded in 5 lines of code :-)

By: ted stockwell

ted stockwell — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:04:38 +0000

I totally agree with you about the so-called advantages of declarative configuration. I just spend many hours trying to figure out a classloading problem that the compiler would have found for me if I had just created objects in code instead of in XML (but lets avoid using the S* word so that we’re not flamed by all the S* fans out there – it’ll be our secret that using S* sucks ;-)).