Talk:Apache Struts 1

Ambiguity in opening[edit]

The opening paragraph has this phrase: "...cit is given to a JavaServer Pages (JSP) document which intermingles HTML and Java code to achieve the same result."

The content of this phrase suggests that the JSP document simply formats the output, and doesn't process the content of the request. But the structure of the sentence suggests that it does process the request. Could somebody please rewrite this sentence to clarify this?

Here are two suggestions for how to rewrite the sentence

1) When browser open any page and send request , this request come through JSP page(here VIEW) to Controller here Servlets, and controler send this to Model, here Java Bean or EJB...then model check this from Resourse DATABASE..thn return reversly browser can get response.

2) The information is then either handed over to a Java Servlet which processes it. No need to interacts the date base switching the control to jsp . jSP intreract with model to get the details . --User:gopal 20:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That suggestion is wrong. Browser opens page by sending HTTP request to Servlet. Servlet analyse request and dispatch processing to appropriate action. Action do it's job and at return specifies which view to use. Then dispatcher forward HTTP request to specified view (JSP, Velocity template etc.) which build the page (or any other document) and send back to browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.64.253 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages[edit]

Can ne One tell me wats the importance of using STRUTS..

Mohsin Quazi (VJTI, INDIA) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.54.232 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As it says in the article, Struts separates the data model from the view and the controller. By keeping these pieces separate, the code becomes much easier to maintain. See the article on Design Patterns for info on the MVC pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelMunoz (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) HIII —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.197.38 (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Struts.gif[edit]

Image:Struts.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How struts work? As the initial step,you have to create an Action class,form bean class for the corresponding jsp page. After that, you have to put appropriate mapping values in the struts-config.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.157.178 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a History section[edit]

Such as when 1.0 came out, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and the major new features in those versions. Jon (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Good Work[reply]

Struts 1.1 looks like it came out July 2003 (see https://groups.google.com/group/fm.announce/browse_thread/thread/cf31d96a765201f4/6f01db9ebb91659e?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=struts+%221.1%22+announce+-%222.2.1.1%22&pli=1#6f01db9ebb91659e); release notes are here: http://struts.apache.org/1.x/userGuide/release-notes-1_1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.185.9 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Design Patterns[edit]

A comment on design patterns was placed in the article itself but was signed as if it was meant for the talk page. I've placed it here below for reference. Can someone who knows about Struts and its use with non-MVC design patterns turn this in to a coherent piece of information and put it back on the main article page? Armchairlinguist (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struts used to use different types of design pattern, while development of Struts based web applications, like Model-View-Control Design pattern, Template Method Design Pattern, Command Design Pattern and Abstract Design Pattern, Front Controller Design Pattern, Composite View Design Patterns. --Bhanu.pratap1418 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was to: http://struts.tekhnologia.com/2012/08/struts-framework-uses-design-patterns.html Design Patterns Used in Struts Framework

References[edit]

Why is Shale listed as Reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogep (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struts 1 and Struts 2 are different incompatible projects and should have their own articles[edit]

Unless someone disagrees I will separate both in different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartinlll (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! It is true the frameworks are incompatible but Struts 2 is logically the continuation of the project. There are many other similar cases. Some from the Python world for example are the Pyramid framework from the Pylons project or Zope 2 and BlueBream frameworks from the Zope community/project. They might be different frameworks but they are logically part of the same project. One article about the Apache Struts project can mention all the software frameworks created by it over time. I do not think Struts 2 warrants its own article. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having two different frameworks mixed on one article just adds confusion. You mixed Bibliography and External Links and they are specific for each of the frameworks. I am going to revert them back, if no one disagrees. --Jmartinlll (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We should have the lead and current article under Apache Struts (unqualified). If they have to be split, then the subsidiary article should be the one under the qualified name. As it is, the Struts article opens with "was" as if it is a dead project and there's little indication that Struts 2 is still live. The Struts 2 article itself (should anyone manage to find it) has very little in it.

An overall "Struts" article could explain Struts far more readily in one place. It would avoid trivial re-statements about MVC. There is no real difference between what Struts 1 and Struts 2 do. The differences between how Struts 1 & 2 achieve this can be explained far better with the context of both visible for comparison (Can anyone really do this otherwise?).

We don't have a Java article that begins "Java 6 was an obsolete programming language (see Java 7 for details)" Viam Ferream (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge - Java 7 is a backwards compatible upgrade to Java 6, while Struts 2 is a different project that was renamed and it is not compatible to Struts. We should not confuse people merging two different and incompatible frameworks in one page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.76.39 (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To me, it seems confusing to have separate articles for Struts 1 and 2. I came here to read about Stuts and expected an article about its current version. Instead, the article is written in past tense like if Stuts as a whole is uncontinued. Only if you read to the end of the leading paragraph, you'll see that there is Stuts 2 as well - and if you're lucky, you'll notice that there is a separate article about it. Also, take a look at how much translations each article has. Guess what: the matter is treated differently depending on the language. So there is no direct translation in German for example, as the German Wiki has only one article - this makes navigation complicated. Also, there seems to be only one article for Cocoon and Maven. I am not entirely sure, if the different versions of Cocoon are incompatible, yet I doubt that Avalon used in earlier versions is still state of the art (in fact, I guess that there are incompatibilities because of Avalon). Maven is a build tool, sure, but I don't see how this makes a difference in this context. In any case, there are incompatibilities between Maven 1 and later versions.

So, if you ask me, write a paragraph about Struts 1 mentioning that it is discontinued, incompatible with Struts 2 and how Struts 2 evolved. Let the rest of the article focus on Struts 2. Struts 1 is that old that only few will care for it or at least, few will care about details.SüsüASárkány (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for better readability, Struts 1 can be the subject of a dedicated Section (Apache_Struts#History). genium ⟨✉⟩ 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename Struts to Struts 1, rename Struts 2 to just Struts and expand it. Struts 1 is dead meat. It would be WP:UNDUE to load the main Struts article down with that baggage. "Apache Struts" should go straight to the current content though. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same as Andy Dingley. Apache Struts should go to the current version, not to the old discontinued version. I was looking for information on Struts, and the current naming stumped me several times. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Genium suggests they can both have their own sections and even there own infoboxes tracking their versions, etc. but there is no real need for a separate article for each. The Apache Struts project is certainly notable enough but I do not think each of Struts 1 and Struts 2 is notable enough to warrant separate articles. Especially since Struts 1 is basically dead. It makes more sense that Struts 1 is a part of the Struts project history (and on that note it might make sense to merge WebWork into Apache Struts too). 50.126.125.240 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please, do not merge different frameworks in the same article. I agree with Andy Dingley (talk) and Enric Naval (talk). We should rename Apache Struts to Apache Struts 1 and have a Apache Struts page that links to both frameworks explaining the history. If no one opposes my suggestion, I will implement it in the following days. Isiahscionone (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Struts → Apache Struts 1 – Make clear that this page is about Apache Struts 1. Apache Struts will be used for the common brand used in both frameworks. Isiahscionone (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per comments in previous section: rename Apache Struts to Apache Struts 1, and Apache Struts 2 to Apache Struts. Oppose merge. They are different frameworks with the same name, and the older one is deadware and no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of this, but not move of Apache Struts 2. Or merge, I don't mind which. No need to make the second version primary topic though, that would violate WP:RECENT. AS1 was a big enough thing in its day, and has long term significance. — Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.