webwork-devel Mailing List for WebWork (Page 12)
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
Menu
▾
▴
webwork-devel — WebWork development
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(316) |
Dec
(117) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(197) |
Feb
(229) |
Mar
(293) |
Apr
(177) |
May
(84) |
Jun
(40) |
Jul
(43) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-04 08:28:22
|
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 |
|
From: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-04 08:28:12
|
I admit that we belong more at OS than JBoss - however, JBoss has more = traffic, thats the only reason.=20 How about this - we go for OS integration, as soon as they have cleaned = up their site and thrown away the useless stuff, after that we join in = effort to promote all the good stuff in the major magazines and = websites. Then, when we start our portal project, which will probably include many = of the OS components, we can start talking to JBoss and see if they will = use our 'product' etc. Then we'll get the best of both... How does this sound? /kjetilhp > -----Original Message----- > From: Rickard [mailto:ri...@mi...] > Sent: 4. april 2002 10:04 > To: web...@li... > Subject: [Webwork-devel] OS or JBOSS: decision time >=20 >=20 > I think we have beat this horse to death enough now. Let's decide. >=20 > The argument is, basically, as follows: > From a technical point of view OS makes sense. > From a marketing point of view JBoss makes sense. However, there are=20 > some serious pitfalls, with regard to server portability issues. >=20 > That is, basically, it. AFAICT. >=20 > From a personal integrity point of view I would rank the=20 > technical side=20 > as being more important. Marketing is, well, people will do=20 > what people=20 > will do, and having a strong technical side will lead to better=20 > marketing possibilities in the end. So, my conclusion would be to go=20 > with OS. >=20 > IIRC Kjetil and Matt are the only ones who wanted to go with=20 > JBoss. Are=20 > there any points besides marketing that led you to that opinion? >=20 > /Rickard >=20 > --=20 > Rickard =D6berg >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel >=20 |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 08:16:59
|
Scott Farquhar wrote: >> Nothing. JBoss has hosted subprojects before, and now Marc offered to=20 >> me that WW could be hosted there, so I put it forth to the mailing=20 >> list as a possibility. And now we're discussing it. Business as usual. >=20 > Can you point me to the URL for those sub-projects? I'm not (yet)=20 > familiar with it. http://jboss.org/developers/jboss-projects.jsp But WW would probably have to be renamed to "fit in". Which would be bad. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 08:13:16
|
Victor Salaman wrote: > Anyhow, I'm out of here. :) Alright, you've been removed as WW developer. > Good luck, Likewise. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 08:06:14
|
I think we have beat this horse to death enough now. Let's decide. The argument is, basically, as follows: From a technical point of view OS makes sense. From a marketing point of view JBoss makes sense. However, there are=20 some serious pitfalls, with regard to server portability issues. That is, basically, it. AFAICT. From a personal integrity point of view I would rank the technical side=20 as being more important. Marketing is, well, people will do what people=20 will do, and having a strong technical side will lead to better=20 marketing possibilities in the end. So, my conclusion would be to go=20 with OS. IIRC Kjetil and Matt are the only ones who wanted to go with JBoss. Are=20 there any points besides marketing that led you to that opinion? /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:56:19
|
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? Or what would=20 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 Symphon= y > name. > Components developed in a truly open source and community philosophy th= at > work together as a Symphony. Yes, that is very clear to me. > Therefore, I vote to keep the already made decision of slowly integrati= ng WW > into OS by first : > - Create a section for WW on OS's site > - Issue a press release annoucing the collaboration, the reasonning beh= ind > and the goals > - Come up with ideas to enhance using OS components and WW together (un= ified > 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 integra= ted > 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=20 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 --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 07:55:07
|
>Me too, I think the discussion is great! We've had lots of good arguments >all round. Well, except for.. never mind.. > Truth hurts doesn't it? >> 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. > > >LOL. Dude, you're too funny. Sarcasm is a great way to make a point. (see, >I can be ironic too). > When in doubt, confuse... I only learned from you :) >Victor, that's a great idea! Go invent the next big web framework, and when >you're done let me know so I can "borrow" whatever good ideas you came up >with. > Well, come on, isn't that what you always do? Welcome to open source :) Feel free to "borrow" whatever you like, after all, it's business as usual. > >>You as well as I do, know that users don't follow projects, they follow >>people... you figure it out. > > >You'll surely get a huge following. > I don't measure my ego in terms of how popular I am, or many people download my works. I have a real life and a sucessful business outside of all this, so open source is not my ego-boosting outlet... It is sad to live a life like that. Anyhow, I'm out of here. :) Good luck, /V _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com |
|
From: Scott F. <sc...@at...> - 2002-04-04 07:50:16
|
Rickard wrote: > Nothing. JBoss has hosted subprojects before, and now Marc offered to me > that WW could be hosted there, so I put it forth to the mailing list as > a possibility. And now we're discussing it. Business as usual. Can you point me to the URL for those sub-projects? I'm not (yet) familiar with it. Thanks Scott -- Scott Farquhar :: sc...@at... Atlassian :: http://www.atlassian.com Supporting YOUR J2EE World |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:44
|
Victor Salaman wrote: >> Lastly - I am wondering what has changed since JavaOne? The=20 >> integration was in the works beforehand. What has changed at JBoss=20 >> that they are now a component vendor? >=20 > Aside from the fact that Marc Fleury paid for Rickard's ticket, and TSS= =20 > did not, and that Rickard quit TSS might have to do something with it,=20 > but that's just a theory... See, here we go again. Subtle sarcasm. Works wonders in discussions. Victor, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. As for the above, it has NOTHING to do with the current discussion. What=20 *is* relevant is that, yes I was at J1, and yes Marc offered to host WW=20 at JBoss, and now we're discussing it. WHAT WOULD YOU WANT ME TO DO=20 VICTOR? Either just do it, or ignore it? Would that be preferred to you?=20 You may have some highly advanced telepathic ability to magically allows=20 you to know what everyone thinks, but I sure don't. So I asked. IT'S=20 THAT SIMPLE. Now, get with the program or go somewhere else. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:43
|
Victor Salaman wrote: > Patrick: >=20 > I really feel like this discussion is taking us anywhere. Me too, I think the discussion is great! We've had lots of good=20 arguments all round. Well, except for.. never mind.. > It is evident=20 > that what starts bad, ends bad, and most of the people involved in WW=20 > are not sensible towards any type of merger with OS. LOL. Dude, you're too funny. Sarcasm is a great way to make a point.=20 (see, I can be ironic too). > So instead of wasting your time and my time, let's discuss a plan=20 > towards creating something new that works as a whole under OpenSymphony= =20 > and discontinue this fruitless pursuit here, after all this is open=20 > source and Apache and Microsoft reinvent the wheel everyday and they're= =20 > are popular. Victor, that's a great idea! Go invent the next big web framework, and=20 when you're done let me know so I can "borrow" whatever good ideas you=20 came up with. > You as well as I do, know that users don't follow projects, they follow= =20 > people... you figure it out. You'll surely get a huge following. Good luck! /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:42
|
Scott Farquhar wrote: > I fail to see how linking with JBoss will show any benefit for users of= =20 > WW on Weblogic or Orion? More exposure for WW -> more users -> more developers -> better code ->=20 benefit for users of WW using Orion/WL. Business as usual. > I am unsure if I have misread Rickard's comments regarding JBoss - are=20 > you looking to host WW on Jboss's website? Or simply redesign the=20 > Website to take advantage of WW? =20 Both. > If you are looking to 'integrate' it=20 > with JBoss - that's great, but I am not sure that will give it more=20 > exposure? =20 A free portal framework running JBoss.org and possibility to write=20 articles around it for JW is not gonna give more exposure? > Struts, and many other MVC frameworks also run on JBoss - I'm=20 > not sure how 'integrating' will help. Perhaps you can discuss the=20 > benefits further? Already done. Read archives. > I think that marketing of both WW and OS can benefit from a sample=20 > application. Mike's mention of PetSoar would probably be a great start= =20 > (as PetStore is a highly recognisable name). There are other ways in=20 > which marketing can be improved for both (Javaworld Articles, other=20 > sample applications). Agree on all points. > In my view, the development of better fitting components between webwor= k=20 > & Opensymphony would increase the use of *both* applications across all= =20 > application servers. I'm not sure that hosting WW on JBoss would=20 > increase its use (apart from on JBoss). Are you intentionally not seeing that or do you really not understand=20 how hosting with JBoss would increase its use (on all servers) ? I mean,=20 come on... > Lastly - I am wondering what has changed since JavaOne? The integratio= n=20 > was in the works beforehand. What has changed at JBoss that they are=20 > now a component vendor? Nothing. JBoss has hosted subprojects before, and now Marc offered to me=20 that WW could be hosted there, so I put it forth to the mailing list as=20 a possibility. And now we're discussing it. Business as usual. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:41
|
Patrick Lightbody wrote: > What about Swing as a view technology. I've always wanted to see that i= n=20 > action, but I can imagine there might not be a "standard" way to do it. There's an example of this in the dist (an applet version of the=20 HelloWorld applet). It needs to be more advanced, but the basic stuff=20 works pretty ok. > Also, by "chain actions", is that the same thing as having the setXxx=20 > methods in ActionB utilize the getXxx methods in ActionA when the resul= t=20 > of ActionA is ActionB? Yes. That is something that a lot people have been asking for, but we=20 haven't been able to figure out a good way to describe these chains and=20 how parameters should be transferred. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:40
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > Also I'd like to get more info on the ClientAction that runs over RMI. = Is it > possible to build other 'remote' actions - ie SOAPAction? I see no reason why it *wouldn't* work. BTW, I think that Flash support could work out of the box with the=20 current ClientServletDispatcher, but that needs to be tested. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:38
|
Patrick Lightbody wrote: > OSCache and Sitemesh are both pretty widely recognized products=20 > (arcticles on JavaWorld have referenced them).=20 Not a single person at J1 knew about either (except Mike and he doesn't=20 count). And I mentioned it to a lot of (supposedly) knowledgeable people. > To me this OS vs JBoss=20 > sounds like it is coming down to a popularity contest more than "what=20 > makes sense"... I seriously hope that isn't the case. Well, it's a tradeoff between pro's and con's, and popularity is=20 certainly a factor. Don't be naive. Stuff like that counts. > OS > 285,035 page views This includes the online docs though, right? Not sure that "counts"=20 really.. anyway.. > Sounds to=20 > me though that the decision has already been made. If you have seen a post with "this is what we'll do", then the decision=20 has been made, otherwise not. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:37
|
Fran=E7ois Beauregard wrote: > I have not tought about all the technical possibilities but here are so= me: > - Unified configuration file That would be nice, yes. > - Management/Monitoring console > - Tag libraries If the OS tags could understand WW EL that would be awesome :-) > - I am sure there are ways to take advantage of OSCache in a nice manne= r in > WW beside simply just using the tags I guess it would be possible to enhance (for example) the include tag to=20 use it, yes. > - I am sure we can also come up with ideas related to SiteMesh > - There is probably also oportunities with OSUser Standard actions that use it, sure. > - 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 Alright, good points. Me like. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-04 07:41:34
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > Might I just say upfront how refreshing this discussion is. Too many Op= en > Source projects are run by arrogant a**holes (no names ;)) who don't ma= ke > decisions by consulting their users - I think Rickard et al are doing a > great job of that! Thank you :-) It's the logical conclusion of realizing that this is a=20 group effort. I mean, like, duh. :-) > I don't want to 'kill' the cruft, I want to hide it in an attic (until = such > time as it dies completely or becomes a stable, high quality component)= . I > think there is a delicate balance that needs to be struck between havin= g > alpha quality, developing Open Source components (which are needed to b= ecome > fully fledged, quality components!) and having stable, released, truste= d > components. Fair enough. > The 'stable' component suite will then be: > - OSCore > - OSUser > - SiteMesh > - OSCache > - Transform Tags=20 Looks good to me. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 06:00:11
|
>Lastly - I am wondering what has changed since JavaOne? The integration >was in the works beforehand. What has changed at JBoss that they are now a >component vendor? > Aside from the fact that Marc Fleury paid for Rickard's ticket, and TSS did not, and that Rickard quit TSS might have to do something with it, but that's just a theory... /V _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx |
|
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 |
|
From: Scott F. <sc...@at...> - 2002-04-04 05:46:36
|
Some stats: Webwork http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/index.php?report=3Dlast_30&group_id=3D= 14797 Opensymphony http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/index.php?report=3Dlast_30&group_id=3D= 9890 From the opensymphony web logs, we do over 4,000 requests a day, and a=20 little over 1,000 pages a day solidly for the last 3 months. <opinion> I believe that WW and OS will both benefit from stronger integration of=20 components. This will increase the benefit for all users. I fail to see how linking with JBoss will show any benefit for users of=20 WW on Weblogic or Orion? It is agreed that both projects have produces & continue to produce high=20 quality J2EE components, that run across many different application=20 servers. OS would have to be the second biggest OS java project apart=20 from jakarta. It would probably be fair to say that WW is the second=20 biggest MVC framework aside from Struts. It also seems that one place that both projects are lacking is=20 marketing. Specifically articles, and general awareness in the=20 community. The fact that people are still custom-building their own=20 caching components, and their own MVC frameworks is a testamony to this. I am unsure if I have misread Rickard's comments regarding JBoss - are=20 you looking to host WW on Jboss's website? Or simply redesign the=20 Website to take advantage of WW? If you are looking to 'integrate' it=20 with JBoss - that's great, but I am not sure that will give it more=20 exposure? Struts, and many other MVC frameworks also run on JBoss - I'm=20 not sure how 'integrating' will help. Perhaps you can discuss the=20 benefits further? I think that marketing of both WW and OS can benefit from a sample=20 application. Mike's mention of PetSoar would probably be a great start=20 (as PetStore is a highly recognisable name). There are other ways in=20 which marketing can be improved for both (Javaworld Articles, other=20 sample applications). In my view, the development of better fitting components between webwork=20 & Opensymphony would increase the use of *both* applications across all=20 application servers. I'm not sure that hosting WW on JBoss would=20 increase its use (apart from on JBoss). Lastly - I am wondering what has changed since JavaOne? The integration=20 was in the works beforehand. What has changed at JBoss that they are=20 now a component vendor? </opinion> Cheers, Scott Kjetil Paulsen wrote: > Could somebody enlighten me on how much traffic there are at the OS sit= e and how many users you have at your mailinglists? After talking to peop= le at JavaOne and elsewhere, OpenSymphony isn't actually a well-known-nam= e...=20 >=20 > I just have a hard time seeing what we would gain from a OS merger, I d= o however see that OS needs WW from the list below ;) >=20 > /kjetilhp >=20 >=20 >>-----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 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 >> >>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? Or what would >>that imply, specifically? >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >>Yes, that is very clear to me. >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >>But this has not much to do with the decision, but rather the=20 >>execution >>of the decision if made in OS's favor. >> >> >> >>>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) >> >> >>Hehe... >> >> >> >>>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. >> >> >>Is the technical point about configuration? Or is there more to it? >> >>/Rickard >> >>-- >>Rickard =D6berg >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Webwork-devel mailing list >>Web...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel >> >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel >=20 --=20 Scott Farquhar :: sc...@at... Atlassian :: http://www.atlassian.com Supporting YOUR J2EE World |
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 05:43:54
|
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 |
|
From: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-04 05:22:35
|
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 |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-04-04 04:14:24
|
Also I'd like to get more info on the ClientAction that runs over RMI. Is it possible to build other 'remote' actions - ie SOAPAction? -mike On 4/4/02 1:52 PM, "Patrick Lightbody" (pli...@ho...) penned the words: > What about Swing as a view technology. I've always wanted to see that in > action, but I can imagine there might not be a "standard" way to do it. > > Also, by "chain actions", is that the same thing as having the setXxx > methods in ActionB utilize the getXxx methods in ActionA when the result of > ActionA is ActionB? > > -Pat > > >> From: "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...> >> To: <web...@li...>, >> <web...@li...> >> Subject: [Webwork-user] revised - next release features/requirements >> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:04:16 -0600 >> >> So here is a revised list of possible next release feature/requirements >> based on what people have posted. Other ideas? >> >> Documentation >> 1. Better velocity documentation >> 2. A more detailed section describing the view mapping focusing on using >> actions.xml and views.properties with an example containing all the goodies >> (commands, aliases, hierarchical aspects etc.) and describing the main >> differences between them. >> 3. A detailed description on the single items and configuration of the >> webwork.properties should be done (based on the default.properties) >> >> Enhancements >> 1. More velocity macros, etc. >> 2. WML tags >> 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) >> 4. Chain actions >> >> Misc >> 1. Bug list >> 2. Feature list >> 3. Instrument/profile code - where is our bottlenecks? how well does WW >> scale? >> 4. Logging - overhaul debug statements to use proper logging levels - >> debug, info, etc. >> 5. Nightly builds >> >> Incorporating new view technologies >> 1. Flash >> 2. Apache Axis (SOAP)? >> >> -Matt >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Webwork-user mailing list >>> Web...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user >>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Webwork-user mailing list >> Web...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-user mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user |
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 03:52:50
|
What about Swing as a view technology. I've always wanted to see that in action, but I can imagine there might not be a "standard" way to do it. Also, by "chain actions", is that the same thing as having the setXxx methods in ActionB utilize the getXxx methods in ActionA when the result of ActionA is ActionB? -Pat >From: "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...> >To: <web...@li...>, ><web...@li...> >Subject: [Webwork-user] revised - next release features/requirements >Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:04:16 -0600 > >So here is a revised list of possible next release feature/requirements >based on what people have posted. Other ideas? > > Documentation > 1. Better velocity documentation > 2. A more detailed section describing the view mapping focusing on using >actions.xml and views.properties with an example containing all the goodies >(commands, aliases, hierarchical aspects etc.) and describing the main >differences between them. > 3. A detailed description on the single items and configuration of the >webwork.properties should be done (based on the default.properties) > > Enhancements > 1. More velocity macros, etc. > 2. WML tags > 3. XHTML tags (possible move our existing tags to be XHTML compliant) > 4. Chain actions > > Misc > 1. Bug list > 2. Feature list > 3. Instrument/profile code - where is our bottlenecks? how well does WW >scale? > 4. Logging - overhaul debug statements to use proper logging levels - >debug, info, etc. > 5. Nightly builds > > Incorporating new view technologies > 1. Flash > 2. Apache Axis (SOAP)? > > -Matt > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Webwork-user mailing list > > Web...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Webwork-user mailing list >Web...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-user _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. |
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-04-04 03:50:06
|
Agreed. I'm working on OSWorkflow (it's actual in a stable state, just no webpage/docs/release yet). I know that the expression language in WebWork could be very useful in OSWorkflow. Likewise, OSCore has some utilities (BeanUtil comes to mind) that could be replaced by those found in WebWork. User management is a huge one. OSUser and WebWork could have some very nice integration points I'm sure (while still not requiring each other). The list could go on for many pages I'm sure. As per Rickard's comment that some components in OS are good and some are... sub par, that is true. But that's a given, I mean not all projects can be in polished shape at the same time. Every project is evolving. I'm working very hard with any spare time I get to polish OSUser, OSCore, and OSWorkflow and provide good documentation and website "marketting". I think WebWork would fit very nicely in to the projects offered by OpenSymphony, but obviously I'm very biased here (OS developer and diehard WebWork user). I'd really hate to see WebWork join up with JBoss for the reasons previsouly mentioned. I don't think it would be a negative move for WebWork, but I believe that it wouldn't really be positive either. Going with OpenSymphony would not only be a positive move, it would also be a good fit technically. -Pat >From: François Beauregard <fbe...@py...> >Reply-To: <fbe...@py...> >To: <web...@li...> >Subject: RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together >Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:08:10 -0500 > > > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx |
|
From: <fbe...@py...> - 2002-04-04 03:06:58
|
> > 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 |
34982 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
