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

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

I'm not on any high horse - I just asked for some facts and also gave =
some. I know that WW isn't very well known and I never stated so, I only =
know the quality. I don't botter to take this further.

/kjetilhp

> OSCache and Sitemesh are both pretty widely recognized=20
> products (arcticles=20
> on JavaWorld have referenced them). To me this OS vs JBoss=20
> sounds like it is=20
> coming down to a popularity contest more than "what makes sense"... I=20
> seriously hope that isn't the case.
>=20
> The thought that OS "needs" WW more than WW "needs" OS is=20
> just silly. I=20
> believe it could be a very symbiotic relationship, but=20
> clearly some people=20
> don't feel that way. On the other hand, if WW joins JBoss, I=20
> could just as=20
> easily take the parts of WW I require for my OS projects and=20
> be done with=20
> it, so it's not some sort of critical part needed for the=20
> survival of OS.=20
> Please... get off your high horse.
>=20
> And in case anyone is counting, here is the stats for the=20
> last 30 days (from=20
> SF.net) regarding OS and WW:
>=20
> OS
> 285,035 page views
> 14,893 downloads
>=20
> WW
> 51,113 page views
> 9,485 downloads
>=20
> And being that OS hasn't updated the SF downloads as recently=20
> as WW has, I=20
> think that says even more about those stats. OS has lots of room for=20
> housekeeping and making releases, and I'm pushing for this to=20
> happen very=20
> soon. When that does happen, I can see those stats easily doubling.
>=20
> I'd love to talk about technical merits as to why this integration=20
> could/should happen, but this other talk will get us nowhere.
>=20
> Rickard had talked about a "portal" extension using WebWork=20
> (correct me if=20
> I'm wrong here). OS could provide many valuable parts to that=20
> goal (I know,=20
> I use WebWork and OS every day at work). OSCore, OSUser, OSWorkflow,=20
> Sitemesh, and OSCache all work very nicely with WebWork=20
> currently, but even=20
> better integration is possible. WebWork could gain a lot from working=20
> closely with OSUser, Sitemesh, and OSCache. Sounds to me=20
> though that the=20
> decision has already been made.
>=20
> -Pat
>=20
> >From: "Kjetil Paulsen" <kje...@mo...>
> >To: <web...@li...>
> >Subject: OS || JBOSS  (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne=20
> get together)
> >Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 07:22:21 +0200
> >
> >Could somebody enlighten me on how much traffic there are at=20
> the OS site=20
> >and how many users you have at your mailinglists? After=20
> talking to people=20
> >at JavaOne and elsewhere, OpenSymphony isn't actually a=20
> well-known-name...
> >
> >I just have a hard time seeing what we would gain from a OS=20
> merger, I do=20
> >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
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate=20
> 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=20
> into OSCoreEJB
> > > - Other great ideas that would come out of community discussions
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > ___________________________
> > > Fran=E7ois Beauregard, b.ing.
> > > Vice-pr=E9sident
> > > Recherche et d=E9veloppement
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > Fran=E7ois Beauregard wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW.
> > >
> > >
> > > Even if technically there is no integration to be made?=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> more to it?
> > >
> > > /Rickard
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rickard =D6berg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20
> http://www.hotmail.com
>=20