From: rbfar@ebuilt.com
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 14:23:32 PDT
Oopsss... I meant ".... cook book method of writing code for MVC" not MAC
:-)
Also, since I didn't sleep last night, it seems I typed in MILO instead of
IMHO! (multiple times too) Or may be it was the spell checker... Can't
remember.... Yikes... Time for another Coke.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: <rbfar@ebuilt.com>
To: "John Regehr" <regehr@cs.utah.edu>
Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Design Patterns Question
> Hi John:
>
> I've been looking into designs of Struts and Cocoon. Struts seems to be
> catching on. But I really think Cocoon is "where it's at". I have
marveled
> at the architecture of Cocoon since a year ago when I first looked at it.
> It has to be the cleanest and most clever architecture I've seen in a few
> years (though I am not an experienced genius like most of the people on
this
> list).
>
> When I look at Struts, it seems like an impossible setup to extend. The
> major downfall, MILO, is that adding orthogonal functionality chunks
causes
> factorial explosion of code branches. In other words, let's say you want
to
> add Internationalization to an application you've implemented using
Struts.
> With the exception of very basic internationalization, you will invariably
> have to have multiple code bases. So, I've come to the conclusion that
the
> only reason Struts seems to be gaining a lot of ground is that SUN wants
to
> push it and that its good to have a cook-book method of writing code for
> MAC. But, MILO, usage of Struts is beginning to look like the "Golden
> Hammer" anti-pattern to me! There are even some people who want to use
> Struts for every implementation of a three-tier architecture.
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND, Cocoon (and Avalon) seem to take an approach that I
like
> a lot better. Let the framework control the components (Inversion of
> Control). There is also the concept of Separation of Concerns (how to
write
> software so that orthogonal functionality additions don't cause code
> explosion) and Aspect programming (I understand this one, but I don't
think
> it has as much value as the first two). So, I've decided that Cocoon and
> Avalon are the way to go for me. Now, I want to understand the patterns
> used in creating them better as that, I believe, is the first step to try
to
> extend them with orthogonal pieces of functionality.
>
> So, with that being said, this is only my novice understanding. I do not
> consider myself the smartest dude.
>
> If anyone on the thread thinks my analysis is wrong, please enlighten this
> ignorant bastard :-)
>
> Otherwise, I would appreciate any other input on this topic.
>
> R
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Regehr" <regehr@cs.utah.edu>
> To: <rbfar@ebuilt.com>
> Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Patterns Question
>
>
> > If you're curious about what researchers are currently up to there's a
> > workshop on Advanced Separation of Concerns going on tomorrow at ICSE.
> > Papers are available:
> >
> >
http://www.research.ibm.com/hyperspace/workshops/icse2001/papers-index.htm
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, 14 May 2001 rbfar@ebuilt.com wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know of any good White Papers, Books, Links, whatever on
the
> following patterns?
> > >
> > > 1. Inversion of Control
> > > 2. Seperation of Concerns
> > > 3. Aspect Programming
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > R
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 14 2001 - 14:17:11 PDT