OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together)

[Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...>]

Could somebody enlighten me on how much traffic there are at the OS site =
and how many users you have at your mailinglists? After talking to =
people at JavaOne and elsewhere, OpenSymphony isn't actually a =
well-known-name...=20

I just have a hard time seeing what we would gain from a OS merger, I do =
however see that OS needs WW from the list below ;)

/kjetilhp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fran=E7ois Beauregard [mailto:fbe...@py...]
> Sent: 4. april 2002 05:08
> To: web...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
>=20
>=20
> > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW.
> > Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or=20
> what would
> > that imply, specifically?
> I have not tought about all the technical possibilities but=20
> here are some:
> - Unified configuration file
> - Management/Monitoring console
> - Tag libraries
> - I am sure there are ways to take advantage of OSCache in a=20
> nice manner in
> WW beside simply just using the tags
> - I am sure we can also come up with ideas related to SiteMesh
> - There is probably also oportunities with OSUser
> - Some things in OSCore can probably be migrated into WW and=20
> then keep very
> general stuff in OSCore move other stuff out of OSCore into OSCoreEJB
> - Other great ideas that would come out of community discussions
>=20
> Cheers,
> ___________________________
> Fran=E7ois Beauregard, b.ing.
> Vice-pr=E9sident
> Recherche et d=E9veloppement
> Pyxis Technologies
> www.pyxis-tech.com
>=20
> T : (450) 681-9094, poste 102
> F : (450) 681-5758
> fbe...@py...
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rickard [mailto:ri...@mi...]
> Sent: April 3, 2002 4:18 PM
> To: fbe...@py...
> Cc: web...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
>=20
>=20
> Fran=E7ois Beauregard wrote:
>=20
> > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW.
>=20
>=20
> Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or what would
> that imply, specifically?
>=20
>=20
> > The idea is to come up with value added components that can=20
> be used in any
> > J2EE environment (including JBoss).
> > Mike explained in a previous post the reasoning behind the=20
> Open Symphony
> > name.
> > Components developed in a truly open source and community=20
> philosophy that
> > work together as a Symphony.
>=20
>=20
> Yes, that is very clear to me.
>=20
>=20
> > Therefore, I vote to keep the already made decision of=20
> slowly integrating
> WW
> > into OS by first :
> > - Create a section for WW on OS's site
> > - Issue a press release annoucing the collaboration, the=20
> reasonning behind
> > and the goals
> > - Come up with ideas to enhance using OS components and WW together
> (unified
> > configuration file, management console, overlaps, ...). May=20
> be create a
> > subproject who would be responsible for this.
> > - Components should always be usable on their own but be=20
> easily integrated
> > in a complete framework for J2EE. This promotes highly=20
> modularized and
> > customizable components.
>=20
>=20
> But this has not much to do with the decision, but rather the=20
> execution
> of the decision if made in OS's favor.
>=20
>=20
> > I also like Mike's idea of a showcase application using WW=20
> that runs on
> > JBoss and use it a promotion for JBoss, WW and OS.
> > (Please don't start a discussion on joining the three)
>=20
>=20
> Hehe...
>=20
>=20
> > Bottom line :
> > Integrating OS and WW make sense both technically and from=20
> a promotion
> point
> > of view.
> > Some combined promotion effort by JBoss and WW also makes sense.
>=20
>=20
> Is the technical point about configuration? Or is there more to it?
>=20
> /Rickard
>=20
> --
> Rickard =D6berg
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Webwork-devel mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
>=20