Thread: OS || JBOSS (WAS -> RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together)
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
|
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: 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: 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: 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 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 08:06:14
|
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: Matt B. <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-04 13:34:09
|
Marketing can't be understated. I still think JBoss is building serious steam and there are things going on over there which will come to light soon. It would be nice to catch the wave. Having said that, I'm fine with the decision to go with OS. I always have been. I think the discussion has been good and I think both will be better in the long run. -Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rickard" <ri...@mi...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:03 AM Subject: [Webwork-devel] OS or JBOSS: decision time 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 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 as being more important. Marketing is, well, people will do what people will do, and having a strong technical side will lead to better marketing possibilities in the end. So, my conclusion would be to go with OS. IIRC Kjetil and Matt are the only ones who wanted to go with JBoss. Are there any points besides marketing that led you to that opinion? /Rickard -- Rickard Öberg _______________________________________________ Webwork-devel mailing list Web...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |