webwork-devel Mailing List for WebWork (Page 13)
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: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-04 02:04:45
|
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 > > |
|
From: <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-03 23:27:37
|
My gut feeling is that JBoss is on the move. Looking at their JBossOne conference recently, training conferences and with JBoss professional services they are putting together, I believe they are definitely moving towards something and it is more than just an app server. Clearly what they are doing is not just haphazard. I still lean towards JBoss. -Matt "Chris Miller" wrote > > > > The only way to avoid that confusion is to create a > > > *new* brandname that is an umbrella for JBoss and WW, or alternatively > go to > > > the trouble of truly establishing JBoss as an umbrella brand, that > contains > > > JBoss Application Server, WW etc. > > > > I doubt that will happen. > > Understandable. But what then are your thoughts on people's perceptions of > JBoss being an app server vs JBoss being an organisation? Because if you > agree that there is some truth to the "JBoss is an app server" mentality, > then without rebranding can you also see the potential confusion that could > eventuate? I don't profess to be a marketing expert by any means, but it > seems a fairly safe bet that it will cause problems. About the only company > I can think of that has managed to pull off something like is Coca-Cola, > however even they aren't selling drinks & chocolate bars, they're sticking > to drinks. OK, shoot me, bad analogy ;-) > > > > But what's the point, when there already exists such a beast going by > the > > > name of OpenSymphony? > > > > What's the point of a Ford when there are Volkswagens? I see where > > you're going with that point, for sure, but it can be argued the other > > way round too. Otherwise we would be stuck in the "so why make another > > framework when we have Struts?" argument still. > > Yes, but Ford competes directly with VW - I can't see any competition > between OS and JBoss (or are you suggesting that would happen by grouping > JBoss + WW? I still can't see how). Surely WW is just looking for a home, > it's tired of being an orphan for so long :-). The best home isn't > necessarily the one with the filmstar. > > > > As several people have pointed out in this thread, OpenSymphony is a > perfect > > > match for WW. OSUser, Sitemesh et al compliment WW very nicely indeed - > > > surely that cannot be denied? > > > > You are absolutely correct, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise > > either. > > Then doesn't it make sense for the match to be formalised? > > > The main reason against OpenSymphony (that I can think of) is the high > > quality differences between the projects. Some are outstanding and some > > are, well, on the other side of the scale. > > Agreed. That is something that can and should be addressed. I'll avoid the > obvious response to that comment... ah, no, what the heck, can't resist - > quality differences never stopped Jakarta ;-). > > Thanks for considering my response. > > Chris Miller > > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-04-03 23:22:02
|
Might I just say upfront how refreshing this discussion is. Too many Open Source projects are run by arrogant a**holes (no names ;)) who don't make decisions by consulting their users - I think Rickard et al are doing a great job of that! On 4/4/02 8:05 AM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the words: > Chris Miller wrote: >> OpenSymphony's 'umbrella' struture parallels >> Jakarta which will help ease the transition for new users. There have been >> several other fairly compelling reasons mentioned on this list, all of which >> to me make the move seem very sensible indeed. > > > The main reason against OpenSymphony (that I can think of) is the high > quality differences between the projects. Some are outstanding and some > are, well, on the other side of the scale. Agreed. Now that I'm back from JavaOne I have two tasks - one being to release JIRA 1.0 (<plug> http://www.atlassian.com/beta/jira </plug> ;)) and the other being to revamp the OpenSymphony site. The revamp is basically to achieve two things: 1) include more information on the released and stable components, and documentation 2) remove / hide all of the cruft (which is exactly what you're saying here). 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 having alpha quality, developing Open Source components (which are needed to become fully fledged, quality components!) and having stable, released, trusted components. The idea being that we advertise the latter, whilst still providing access to the former if you're hardcore/stupid/masochistic ;) The 'stable' component suite will then be: - OSCore - OSUser - SiteMesh - OSCache - Transform Tags Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion. Our aim is not to become Jakarta (a dumping ground for random pieces of code of totally varying quality) but to provide top quality J2EE components, whilst still giving access to the alpha stuff if you want it. Cheers, Mike |
|
From: Chris M. <chr...@ho...> - 2002-04-03 22:32:04
|
> > The only way to avoid that confusion is to create a > > *new* brandname that is an umbrella for JBoss and WW, or alternatively go to > > the trouble of truly establishing JBoss as an umbrella brand, that contains > > JBoss Application Server, WW etc. > > I doubt that will happen. Understandable. But what then are your thoughts on people's perceptions of JBoss being an app server vs JBoss being an organisation? Because if you agree that there is some truth to the "JBoss is an app server" mentality, then without rebranding can you also see the potential confusion that could eventuate? I don't profess to be a marketing expert by any means, but it seems a fairly safe bet that it will cause problems. About the only company I can think of that has managed to pull off something like is Coca-Cola, however even they aren't selling drinks & chocolate bars, they're sticking to drinks. OK, shoot me, bad analogy ;-) > > But what's the point, when there already exists such a beast going by the > > name of OpenSymphony? > > What's the point of a Ford when there are Volkswagens? I see where > you're going with that point, for sure, but it can be argued the other > way round too. Otherwise we would be stuck in the "so why make another > framework when we have Struts?" argument still. Yes, but Ford competes directly with VW - I can't see any competition between OS and JBoss (or are you suggesting that would happen by grouping JBoss + WW? I still can't see how). Surely WW is just looking for a home, it's tired of being an orphan for so long :-). The best home isn't necessarily the one with the filmstar. > > As several people have pointed out in this thread, OpenSymphony is a perfect > > match for WW. OSUser, Sitemesh et al compliment WW very nicely indeed - > > surely that cannot be denied? > > You are absolutely correct, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise > either. Then doesn't it make sense for the match to be formalised? > The main reason against OpenSymphony (that I can think of) is the high > quality differences between the projects. Some are outstanding and some > are, well, on the other side of the scale. Agreed. That is something that can and should be addressed. I'll avoid the obvious response to that comment... ah, no, what the heck, can't resist - quality differences never stopped Jakarta ;-). Thanks for considering my response. Chris Miller |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 22:07:01
|
Chris Miller wrote: > The only way to avoid that confusion is to create a > *new* brandname that is an umbrella for JBoss and WW, or alternatively = go to > the trouble of truly establishing JBoss as an umbrella brand, that cont= ains > JBoss Application Server, WW etc. I doubt that will happen. > But what's the point, when there already exists such a beast going by t= he > name of OpenSymphony? What's the point of a Ford when there are Volkswagens? I see where=20 you're going with that point, for sure, but it can be argued the other=20 way round too. Otherwise we would be stuck in the "so why make another=20 framework when we have Struts?" argument still. > As several people have pointed out in this thread, OpenSymphony is a pe= rfect > match for WW. OSUser, Sitemesh et al compliment WW very nicely indeed - > surely that cannot be denied?=20 You are absolutely correct, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise=20 either. > OpenSymphony's 'umbrella' struture parallels > Jakarta which will help ease the transition for new users. There have b= een > several other fairly compelling reasons mentioned on this list, all of = which > to me make the move seem very sensible indeed. The main reason against OpenSymphony (that I can think of) is the high=20 quality differences between the projects. Some are outstanding and some=20 are, well, on the other side of the scale. > I fear my voice is wasted, since, as was pointed out in the not too dis= tant > past, we're not dealing with a democracy here. That I can even understa= nd > and live with, as long as the decision makers make decisions based on l= ogic > rather than desires. I hear you. Good points, and thanks for your input. This is a tough decision, and which is important for the overall=20 direction of WW. I would appreciate if more input as Chris just provided=20 was being put forth. Democracy no, but certainly no dictatorship either=20 (in the strictest sense of the word anyway). /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Chris M. <chr...@ho...> - 2002-04-03 21:29:46
|
I have had little to do with OS, JBoss or WW as anything other than a user who is very pleased to find high-quality alternatives to some of the Jakarta offerings. However I'd like to add at least $0.01 to this thread. When I first heard mention of WW moving under JBoss's "umbrella" (more like "shadow"), my reaction was "Huh?". It didn't make sense to me. It still doesn't, despite having read through this whole discussion. Tomcat and Struts don't really belong together either, however Jakarta gets away with it because they have 20 or so other equally disparate projects on the go, and people think of Jakarta as a one-stop-shop. About the only thing I can think of that WW stands to gain by being lumped under the same banner as JBoss is (as has been pointed out) a credibility/exposure boost, since JBoss has (AFAICT) a higher profile than WW. I agree this is a good thing. There is a cost to that though, and I think it's quite high - people *will* become confused as to the portability and functionality of WW, and they *will* be hesitant to use it independently to JBoss. JBoss currently has no branding that is equivalent to 'Jakarta' or 'OpenSymphony'. [Rickard I notice in your latest post you say that it is both. Ask the man-on-the-street for his perception, I have a feeling you may not get the same response. A quick poll in the office here certainly suggests otherwise]. The only way to avoid that confusion is to create a *new* brandname that is an umbrella for JBoss and WW, or alternatively go to the trouble of truly establishing JBoss as an umbrella brand, that contains JBoss Application Server, WW etc. But what's the point, when there already exists such a beast going by the name of OpenSymphony? As several people have pointed out in this thread, OpenSymphony is a perfect match for WW. OSUser, Sitemesh et al compliment WW very nicely indeed - surely that cannot be denied? OpenSymphony's 'umbrella' struture parallels Jakarta which will help ease the transition for new users. There have been several other fairly compelling reasons mentioned on this list, all of which to me make the move seem very sensible indeed. I fear my voice is wasted, since, as was pointed out in the not too distant past, we're not dealing with a democracy here. That I can even understand and live with, as long as the decision makers make decisions based on logic rather than desires. Chris Miller |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 20:47:41
|
Jim...@do... wrote: > There is no fit here with jBoss, other than Rickard. WebWork rides on t= op=20 > of every server that has a servlet container (jBoss, Orion, Tomcat, Jet= ty,=20 > WebLogic, BES, Pramati, etc. etc. etc.) We should have an example app i= n=20 > the contrib section of all these projects, as well as those technologie= s=20 > that ride on top of WebWork (velocity). Review the post I made about app servers and frameworks. And FWIW I=20 agree: perception *is* reality. > I build jBoss at least once a week, and WebWork would be more obscured=20 > than the Tomcat and Jetty web plugins. Their build system alone is an=20 > order of complexity greater than WebWorks. How would I check out and bu= ild=20 > just jBoss? Would this be a completely unrelated CVS root that is under= =20 > some new kind of jBoss LLC umbrella? We're not talking about integrating with CVS in that sense, and I agree,=20 there would be no point in that. And again, no one has suggested it=20 either, other than you. > Is WebWork, on its own, not pulling down respectable mind share?=20 It is. That's not the point though. The point is how to grow the=20 community in the right direction. Levaraging JBoss would be one way. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 20:45:03
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > On one note - please ignore any of Victor's OT comments. He does not me= an > any offense. I think it's good to have some passion flowing on the mail= ing > list! ;) Passion yes, but that had nothing to do with "passion". "Emotional=20 frustration" more like. Which he seems to blame me for. > However JBoss is an application server. It is not a site which hosts > projects, its not an umbrella project.=20 Currently it is both, really. > I don't even know if it has the same > license as WW? (I don't believe it does - not that this is overly impor= tant) No, JBoss is LGPL. > My $0.02 - there is a large difference. Well, that depends on what you focus on, but I see your point. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Low H. S. <lo...@us...> - 2002-04-03 17:29:11
|
Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/util In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv10786 Modified Files: ValueStack.java Log Message: Fixed typo |
|
From: Low H. S. <lo...@us...> - 2002-04-03 16:42:13
|
Update of /cvsroot/webwork/webwork/src/main/webwork/util In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv13576 Modified Files: ValueStack.java Log Message: Previous fix miss a minor condition bug |
|
From: <Jim...@do...> - 2002-04-03 14:58:25
|
Should have been, "How would I check out and build just WebWork?"
Jim...@do...
Sent by: web...@li...
04/03/2002 09:28 AM
To: Rickard <ri...@mi...>
cc: "web...@li..."
<web...@li...>,
web...@li...
Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
> Which is good, and even after WW joins JBoss I will think that is good.
> And NOONE has said differently. We can write it in capital letters in
> docs to make sure noone misses it. "WORKS WITH X Y Z. REALLY".
You are kidding right? Perception is reality.
There is no fit here with jBoss, other than Rickard. WebWork rides on top
of every server that has a servlet container (jBoss, Orion, Tomcat, Jetty,
WebLogic, BES, Pramati, etc. etc. etc.) We should have an example app in
the contrib section of all these projects, as well as those technologies
that ride on top of WebWork (velocity).
I build jBoss at least once a week, and WebWork would be more obscured
than the Tomcat and Jetty web plugins. Their build system alone is an
order of complexity greater than WebWorks. How would I check out and build
just jBoss? Would this be a completely unrelated CVS root that is under
some new kind of jBoss LLC umbrella?
Is WebWork, on its own, not pulling down respectable mind share? Why this
big push to fit a square peg in a round hole?
jim
_______________________________________________
Webwork-devel mailing list
Web...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel
|
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-04-03 14:47:11
|
On one note - please ignore any of Victor's OT comments. He does not mean any offense. I think it's good to have some passion flowing on the mailing list! ;) On 3/4/02 4:27 PM, "Rickard" (ri...@mi...) penned the words: >> after all, they're free and have a >> non-restrictive licensing model. On the other hand, a WL user can use >> Velocity, Struts, Webwork or Log4J :) ... That's my point. > > You're still confusing to me. WW (just as any of the above) would still > work with other servers. Conceptually there's no difference between WW > being hosted by JBoss and (for example) Struts being hosted by Jakarta. Sorry, but this is totally different. Jakarta is an umbrella project for all of the Java projects hosted by the Apache group. They all have the same license, the same development model, the same silly voting process etc. Tomcat is a servlet container and just ONE of these projects, and Struts is another. However JBoss is an application server. It is not a site which hosts projects, its not an umbrella project. I don't even know if it has the same license as WW? (I don't believe it does - not that this is overly important) My $0.02 - there is a large difference. -mike |
|
From: <Jim...@do...> - 2002-04-03 14:28:16
|
> Which is good, and even after WW joins JBoss I will think that is good. > And NOONE has said differently. We can write it in capital letters in > docs to make sure noone misses it. "WORKS WITH X Y Z. REALLY". You are kidding right? Perception is reality. There is no fit here with jBoss, other than Rickard. WebWork rides on top of every server that has a servlet container (jBoss, Orion, Tomcat, Jetty, WebLogic, BES, Pramati, etc. etc. etc.) We should have an example app in the contrib section of all these projects, as well as those technologies that ride on top of WebWork (velocity). I build jBoss at least once a week, and WebWork would be more obscured than the Tomcat and Jetty web plugins. Their build system alone is an order of complexity greater than WebWorks. How would I check out and build just jBoss? Would this be a completely unrelated CVS root that is under some new kind of jBoss LLC umbrella? Is WebWork, on its own, not pulling down respectable mind share? Why this big push to fit a square peg in a round hole? jim |
|
From: Vedovato P. <pao...@pr...> - 2002-04-03 14:10:39
|
my 0.02$ > Documentation - a more detailed section describing the view mapping. focused 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. - also a detailed description on the single items and configuration of the webwork.properties should be done (based on the default.properties) cheers -paolo |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-03 06:46:39
|
>After this J1 nothing surprises me. Perhaps not BEA, but other vendors >were (for example) muttering about throwing out their own EJB-container >and using JBoss. > Great! >You're still confusing to me. WW (just as any of the above) would still >work with other servers. Conceptually there's no difference between WW >being hosted by JBoss and (for example) Struts being hosted by Jakarta. I guess our communications are confusing, so let's not communicate. I see we have very different views regarding this subject and it makes no sense to me to discuss it further. You're a very smart person and I wish you the best. /V /V _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 06:39:19
|
Hai Pham wrote: > Currently there are two minor usage problems with > CommandDriven factory. I will summarize them briefly > below. A patch is attached along in this email. >=20 > 1. Command Name: >=20 > Right now the name of the command is fetched from the > value of the submit button: No it's not. It's fetched from any field with the name "command". I=20 personally prefer to make it a hidden field. > 2. Recursive CommandDriven invocation: >=20 > This happens when there is a "command" parameter in > the request's parameter list. This command is supposed > to be used by the action handling the form only. Now, > if within that action, you dynamically execute another > CommandDriven action, or within the view of that > action you use <webwork:action> or #action (velocity), > ww will set and invoke the same command. This is not > an expected behavior. Of course you can use > MyAction!myCommand to get around that, but right now > it doesn't seem to work with action alias. The quick > fix is to check if the action name ends with '!'; if > it does then we need not to set the command. This has to do with the more complicated problem of chaining actions,=20 which is something that needs to be dealt with soon, agreed. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 06:36:26
|
Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote: > Personally (I'll try to remove my OS bias here) I would be sad to see W= W > rolled into the JBoss project. Both JBoss and WW are excellent products= , but > I feel it would add a tremendous amount of bias (perceived or otherwise= ) to > WW to be part of a single server vendor. JBoss is a single server vendo= r - > don't mistake it.=20 As is Jakarta, in a sense. If you look at what they actually deliver it=20 is kind of similar to JBoss: a J2EE engine (web instead of EJB though),=20 a mgmt framework (Avalon instead of JBossMX). Struts seem to be doing=20 fine anyway. > OS has always prided itself on being 'server agnostic' and we have a nu= mber > of guys who try very hard to make sure our components run on many diffe= rent > servers as possible (for example - see the SiteMesh test suite which > currently automatically tests SiteMesh on ~ 10 different app servers!) Which is good, and even after WW joins JBoss I will think that is good.=20 And NOONE has said differently. We can write it in capital letters in=20 docs to make sure noone misses it. "WORKS WITH X Y Z. REALLY". > I'm not saying that putting WW under the JBoss umbrella would necessari= ly > 'bias' things, but that it would certainly taint the independence that > currently WW has (as would joining Jakarta but I'll keep that flame war= for > another day ;)) What's the difference between "bias things" and "taint the=20 independence"? Semantics... > If joining JBoss is all about attention, I'm sure this can still be gai= ned > by providing a sample app with JBoss that uses WW (such as PetSoar - > http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=3D12753), linkin= g from > the JBoss site to the project page etc. Well, that would work, although I'd personally prefer to do that portal=20 thingy since it'd be actually useful. Although I guess something like=20 PetSoar could be a useful place to put common app tools in (i.e. stuff=20 that are common to many projects). > PS Anyone who believes 'best XXX' from any Java magazine is a fool ;) T= he > voting in those elections is more rigged than a Presidential election t= hat > comes down to a recount in a state in which your brother is governor ;) So you're saying the committee was bribed? ;-) Can I quote you on that? /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 06:30:16
|
Victor Salaman wrote: > Again, I am confused.... again, let's leave it there and not waste any=20 > more bandwidth on this. Well, the issue needs to be settled, but if you're unable to contribute=20 any sensible argument then sure ;-) /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-03 06:29:01
|
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 |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-03 06:24:24
|
>And also Victor - I wish you could try to keep your comments and reactions >on a little more modest level. > Don't worry, I'll refrain from commenting altogether. /V _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx |
|
From: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-03 06:20:22
|
> You see, now this is a good application and marketing=20 > conduit. It also makes=20 > sense... Somehow your previous message was misinterpreted by=20 > Matt and Kjetil=20 > as you wanting to integrate WebWork to the JBoss core, for=20 > which I see no=20 > reason and no added benefit to either project. I've never said anything about integration to the server, our discussion = during J1 was about being part of the JBoss community, not the server. = We talked about what would get us the best exposure - in addition to = articles of course. If both the JBoss site was developed as an WW portal = app and maybe also distributed with JBoss as THE sample application it = would give us a lot of attention. And also Victor - I wish you could try to keep your comments and = reactions on a little more modest level. /kjetilhp >=20 |
|
From: <fbe...@py...> - 2002-04-03 04:10:12
|
I might not be the most objective since I am the one who came up with the idea of integrating OS and WW. Still, here is my opinion : I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW. 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. 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. 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) 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. My 0.02$ ___________________________ 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... |
|
From: Rick S. <rs...@mb...> - 2002-04-03 02:38:06
|
> From: On Behalf Of ma...@sm... > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 3:52 PM > Subject: [Webwork-user] next release features, requirements > > 3. XHTML tags I think making the WW's output xhtml compliant would be an excellent step. I've been developing all my sites to transitional currently. I've developed a few sites strict as well, and if this would make all WW would output to xhtml, it would make developing a web app to be viewable by all xhtml compliant devices a minor chore. I don't know if I'd be too concerned with WML right off the bat. From what I can see, not too many people (at least the ones I know ;)) are using it. Most new cell phones or PDA's understand simple xhtml, so I'd probably add in xhtml support first. > 3. Instrument/profile code - where is our bottlenecks? > how well does WW scale? I'd love to help out with this if needed. > Incorporating new view technologies > 1. Flash Sounds interesting... Where I work, the designers are crazy about Flash. A lot of the new devices coming out have a flash player for them. This would be an excellent way to get WW into those shops... > 2. Apache Axis? Again, sounds intriguing. Rick |
|
From: Mike Cannon-B. <mi...@at...> - 2002-04-02 23:21:19
|
I was on a plane when this thread started - just got back to Sydney after J= 1 today. (For those of you who don't know me - I'm the 'OS guy' that was at the WebWork meeting ;)) Personally (I'll try to remove my OS bias here) I would be sad to see WW rolled into the JBoss project. Both JBoss and WW are excellent products, bu= t I feel it would add a tremendous amount of bias (perceived or otherwise) to WW to be part of a single server vendor. JBoss is a single server vendor - don't mistake it.=20 OS has always prided itself on being 'server agnostic' and we have a number of guys who try very hard to make sure our components run on many different servers as possible (for example - see the SiteMesh test suite which currently automatically tests SiteMesh on ~ 10 different app servers!) I'm not saying that putting WW under the JBoss umbrella would necessarily 'bias' things, but that it would certainly taint the independence that currently WW has (as would joining Jakarta but I'll keep that flame war for another day ;)) If joining JBoss is all about attention, I'm sure this can still be gained by providing a sample app with JBoss that uses WW (such as PetSoar - http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=3D12753), linking from the JBoss site to the project page etc. I'd vote against a merger with JBoss. My $0.02. -mike PS Anyone who believes 'best XXX' from any Java magazine is a fool ;) The voting in those elections is more rigged than a Presidential election that comes down to a recount in a state in which your brother is governor ;) On 2/4/02 11:04 AM, "Matt Baldree" (ma...@sm...) penned the words: > 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 instanc= e, > 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 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 >=20 > -Matt >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rickard" <ri...@mi...> > To: "Matt Baldree" <ma...@sm...> > Cc: "Webwork-Developer" <web...@li...> > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:05 AM > Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together >=20 >=20 > Matt Baldree wrote: >=20 >> For those of us that missed the get together, would it be possible for >> someone to post some highlights? >=20 > Well, it was a pretty modest gettogether (me, Kjetil, Maurice + 3 from > OpenSymphony, oh and Cedric from BEA). You were sorely missed Matt! >=20 > Mostly we just chatted, but we did talk about some about what to do > next. Supporting Flash as client was pretty high on the list, and from > what I can tell it should be trivial to do. I'm gonna get some > HelloWorld examples from Macromedia and convert them to use WW. >=20 > We also talked some about what would be the best way to go for WW in > terms of greater exposure. On the one hand OpenSymphony does make sense > (as already discussed), but on the other hand joining JBoss (which I'll > probably join up with again, now that I quit from TSS) would give us a > much more even footing with Struts. Because believe it or not, the > primary question I got last week was "So, who does this relate to > Struts?". Argh... >=20 > So, that was pretty much it. Good beer good chat good place. :-) >=20 > /Rickard >=20 > -- > Rickard =D6berg >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-02 22:40:00
|
> >>I just see nothing that could be added to WebWork relating to JBoss, since >>as a tool it is used to make applications, and is therefore not part of >>the environment. > > >Ok. So, since WW is so well encapsulated and generic, by the above logic >there would be no point in joining any umbrella organization whatsoever, >including OpenSymphony. > >Right? I can see no other conclusion from your above statement. > Well, there is a point in joining an umbrella organization when everyone is getting something positive out of it. > >>We just should not ride in a marketing bus without a reason since it's >>pointless. > > >Sure, but there is a point. Why do you think app vendors are >buying&integrating frameworks into their suites? Because users want as >complete a framework as possible, and if something is officially shipped >with the appserver it's sure to work with it. > Agreed. >>There are far better ways of marketing than to be out of focus! :) I bet >>you love those nice "Buy me now" banner ads popping up when you're reading >>a news article in JDJ or JavaWorld!, and the item has nothing to do with >>what you're reading, or interesting to reading audience. > > >You're rambling. Get to the point. > > Rambling is always good.. Ask Apache :) >>Orion for example, is superior to Weblogic, but have poor docs, and >>extremely lame marketing, nonetheless the product is better.... but BEA >>markets their product, Ironflare hmmmm.... > > >But this is contradictory to your initial argument that WW should not join >JBoss. > >You're confusing. > Now you're confusing me! But let's not waste bandwidth on this... > >>My point is... Instead of trying to catch someone else's wave... let's >>work towards creating a wave.... > >If that's your point, then why the above argument which points in the >opposite direction!? > Again, I am confused.... again, let's leave it there and not waste any more bandwidth on this. /V _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. |
34982 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
