Re: OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together)
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
Menu
▾
▴
Re: OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together)
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 05:55:19
|
Patrick: I really feel like this discussion is taking us anywhere. It is evident that what starts bad, ends bad, and most of the people involved in WW are not sensible towards any type of merger with OS. So instead of wasting your time and my time, let's discuss a plan towards creating something new that works as a whole under OpenSymphony and discontinue this fruitless pursuit here, after all this is open source and Apache and Microsoft reinvent the wheel everyday and they're are popular. You as well as I do, know that users don't follow projects, they follow people... you figure it out. /V >From: "Patrick Lightbody" <pli...@ho...> >To: kje...@mo..., web...@li... >Subject: Re: OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get >together) >Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:43:30 -0800 > >OSCache and Sitemesh are both pretty widely recognized products (arcticles >on JavaWorld have referenced them). To me this OS vs JBoss sounds like it >is >coming down to a popularity contest more than "what makes sense"... I >seriously hope that isn't the case. > >The thought that OS "needs" WW more than WW "needs" OS is just silly. I >believe it could be a very symbiotic relationship, but clearly some people >don't feel that way. On the other hand, if WW joins JBoss, I could just as >easily take the parts of WW I require for my OS projects and be done with >it, so it's not some sort of critical part needed for the survival of OS. >Please... get off your high horse. > >And in case anyone is counting, here is the stats for the last 30 days >(from >SF.net) regarding OS and WW: > >OS >285,035 page views >14,893 downloads > >WW >51,113 page views >9,485 downloads > >And being that OS hasn't updated the SF downloads as recently as WW has, I >think that says even more about those stats. OS has lots of room for >housekeeping and making releases, and I'm pushing for this to happen very >soon. When that does happen, I can see those stats easily doubling. > >I'd love to talk about technical merits as to why this integration >could/should happen, but this other talk will get us nowhere. > >Rickard had talked about a "portal" extension using WebWork (correct me if >I'm wrong here). OS could provide many valuable parts to that goal (I know, >I use WebWork and OS every day at work). OSCore, OSUser, OSWorkflow, >Sitemesh, and OSCache all work very nicely with WebWork currently, but even >better integration is possible. WebWork could gain a lot from working >closely with OSUser, Sitemesh, and OSCache. Sounds to me though that the >decision has already been made. > >-Pat > >>From: "Kjetil Paulsen" <kje...@mo...> >>To: <web...@li...> >>Subject: OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together) >>Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:22:21 +0200 >> >>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... >> >>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: François Beauregard [mailto:fbe...@py...] >> > Sent: 4. april 2002 05:08 >> > To: web...@li... >> > Subject: RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together >> > >> > >> > > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW. >> > > Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or >> > what would >> > > that imply, specifically? >> > I have not tought about all the technical possibilities but >> > here are some: >> > - Unified configuration file >> > - Management/Monitoring console >> > - Tag libraries >> > - I am sure there are ways to take advantage of OSCache in a >> > 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 >> > 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 >> > >> > Cheers, >> > ___________________________ >> > François Beauregard, b.ing. >> > Vice-président >> > Recherche et développement >> > Pyxis Technologies >> > www.pyxis-tech.com >> > >> > T : (450) 681-9094, poste 102 >> > F : (450) 681-5758 >> > fbe...@py... >> > >> > -----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 >> > >> > >> > François Beauregard wrote: >> > >> > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW. >> > >> > >> > Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or what would >> > that imply, specifically? >> > >> > >> > > The idea is to come up with value added components that can >> > be used in any >> > > J2EE environment (including JBoss). >> > > Mike explained in a previous post the reasoning behind the >> > Open Symphony >> > > name. >> > > Components developed in a truly open source and community >> > philosophy that >> > > work together as a Symphony. >> > >> > >> > Yes, that is very clear to me. >> > >> > >> > > Therefore, I vote to keep the already made decision of >> > slowly integrating >> > WW >> > > into OS by first : >> > > - Create a section for WW on OS's site >> > > - Issue a press release annoucing the collaboration, the >> > reasonning behind >> > > and the goals >> > > - Come up with ideas to enhance using OS components and WW together >> > (unified >> > > configuration file, management console, overlaps, ...). May >> > be create a >> > > subproject who would be responsible for this. >> > > - Components should always be usable on their own but be >> > easily integrated >> > > in a complete framework for J2EE. This promotes highly >> > modularized and >> > > customizable components. >> > >> > >> > But this has not much to do with the decision, but rather the >> > execution >> > of the decision if made in OS's favor. >> > >> > >> > > I also like Mike's idea of a showcase application using WW >> > that runs on >> > > JBoss and use it a promotion for JBoss, WW and OS. >> > > (Please don't start a discussion on joining the three) >> > >> > >> > Hehe... >> > >> > >> > > Bottom line : >> > > Integrating OS and WW make sense both technically and from >> > a promotion >> > point >> > > of view. >> > > Some combined promotion effort by JBoss and WW also makes sense. >> > >> > >> > Is the technical point about configuration? Or is there more to it? >> > >> > /Rickard >> > >> > -- >> > Rickard Öberg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Webwork-devel mailing list >> > Web...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel >> > >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Webwork-devel mailing list >>Web...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Webwork-devel mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com |
