Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together

[Rickard <ri...@mi...>]

Victor Salaman wrote:

> I have a different opinion, since technically both are tools that=20
> complement each other mostly in order to deliver a great development=20
> platform to the end user. Marketing-wise, none of the two groups have a=
=20
> powerful exposure, so the point is all technical.


You stated in a previous message that JBoss has good marketing, and now=20
you say they don't. Make up your mind.


> <quote>
> I think OS has done a good job and working with them would be good, but
> throwing in a new opportunity such as JBoss adds a new twist. For insta=
nce,
> Jetty is a separate project that is embedded in JBoss so why not WW? I
> believe JBoss could use a good web tier framework, and I think its coat
> tails have grown since it won best app server from JavaWorld. In=20
> addition, I
> know Jakarta solicited them to come aboard but Marc set them straight. =
So,
> my vote is JBoss. I think WW has the greatest potential to grow under
> JBoss's umbrella.
>=20
> My $0.02
> </quote>
>=20
> "I believe JBoss could use a good web tier framework" -- Matt


Where is the word "integration"? I don't see it..


> Those are all tools. Tools are meant to be cross-used. There's a big=20
> difference between Tools and AppServers. Would BEA replace their Web=20
> container with Tomcat or Jetty?=20


After this J1 nothing surprises me. Perhaps not BEA, but other vendors=20
were (for example) muttering about throwing out their own EJB-container=20
and using JBoss.

> after all, they're free and have a=20
> non-restrictive licensing model. On the other hand, a WL user can use=20
> Velocity, Struts, Webwork or Log4J :) ... That's my point.

You're still confusing to me. WW (just as any of the above) would still=20
work with other servers. Conceptually there's no difference between WW=20
being hosted by JBoss and (for example) Struts being hosted by Jakarta.

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg