First, I want to mention my appreciation of thatarticle.
Although, I'm a very picky conceptual person who likes vulgarisation, and believes that an article can achieve an efficient explanation by answering, in order, the following questions:
- WHY do we need strut to achieve MVC? What outcome does it bring to a programmer? What if we don't have it compare to if we have it?
- WHAT concepts need to be realized to achieve that purpose.
- HOW does strut realizes these concepts. Providing a simple example of a business solution implemented with strut would be a good to answer that question.
If a so called 'strut' is somehow a framework that facilitates the implementation of logic distribution following the MVC pattern, it should be explained in a functional perspective.
MVC versus J2EE:
- View = JSP; That is clear.
- Controller = Servlet; That is also clear.
- Model = Javabean or a session EJB, or an Entity EJB; If that is so, that one is not clearly stated in the article.
What is strut advantage when using J2EE technology?..and how the same could be achieved using .NET?
The term 'framework' should be re-introduced in that article to ensure a common understanding. If .NET is a framework, then a framework is somehow a set of reusable components for a specific domain (e.g. JSP, servlet, EJB session, EJB entity).
Now about the term 'Jakarta Struts', does this still speak about coffee or dancing, or about an aspect of IT. What I mean here, is that by keeping using funny words, instead of conceptual or functional concepts, the Java world doesn't help others to understand the purpose of that new kid on the block that is called a 'strut'.