RE: What is the real goal behind Maverick?

You consider Struts to be minimalist?  I certainly don't - they fold in
database connection pools, message bundles, form validation, JSP
taglibs, and all sorts of other weird stuff which distract from the
web-MVC pattern.  I'm a big fan of the Apache process, but there is a
definite tendency towards scope creep in Jakarta projects.

 

Yes, I think Maverick is considerably simpler than Struts.  The API is a
lot smaller, and there is considerably less code.  I'll also throw out a
fairly bold statement - Maverick provides (either already or by adding
best-of-breed technologies available on the net) a superset of the
features of Struts.

 

I don't know what you mean by your second question.  What do you mean
"more powerful"?

 

Jeff Schnitzer

[email protected]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Thompson, Kris [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Mav-user] What is the real goal behind Maverick?

 

I was checking out the home page on Maverick this morning and am left
with a few questions.  You claim that Maverick is a minimalist MVC which
is one of its strengths.  You also mention that was designed with
pluggability and extendability in mind.  I have worked with a few
frameworks, not Maverick yet, and I found some to be very large like
Expresso and others to be mimimalist like Struts, so do you really feel
that Maverick is even MORE easier and basic than Struts or are you
referring to these others larger frameworks when making that claim?

And next yet related, which claim do you feel is more powerful, the
mimimalist of the framework or the pluggability it has?

Thanks 

Kris Thompson 
frameworks-boulder.org