Thread: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
Brought to you by:
baldree,
rickardoberg
Menu
▾
▴
webwork-devel
|
From: Patrick L. <pli...@ho...> - 2002-04-01 16:34:18
|
Well that was a short tenure at TSS :) As for OpenSymphony, I know I'd love to see these two groups work together, I think it would make a lot of sense. As for JBoss, I don't exactly see how WW fits in with JBoss... is there a relationship I'm missing? JBoss is everything but the servlet/jsp container (which is too bad since that means it depends on Tomcrap), and WW requires only a servlet/jsp container. Anyway, congrats on the new endevours, whatever they may be! -Pat >From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> >To: Matt Baldree <ma...@sm...> >CC: Webwork-Developer <web...@li...> >Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together >Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:05:38 +0200 > >Matt Baldree wrote: > >>For those of us that missed the get together, would it be possible for >>someone to post some highlights? > >Well, it was a pretty modest gettogether (me, Kjetil, Maurice + 3 from >OpenSymphony, oh and Cedric from BEA). You were sorely missed Matt! > >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. > >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... > >So, that was pretty much it. Good beer good chat good place. :-) > >/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: Kjetil P. <kje...@mo...> - 2002-04-02 18:55:43
|
Completely agree, this is at opportunity of attention we can't get = elsewhere. /kjetilhp > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Baldree [mailto:ma...@sm...] > Sent: 2. april 2002 03:05 > To: Rickard > Cc: Webwork-Developer > Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together >=20 >=20 > I think OS has done a good job and working with them would be=20 > good, but > throwing in a new opportunity such as JBoss adds a new twist.=20 > For instance, > 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=20 > think its coat > tails have grown since it won best app server from JavaWorld.=20 > In addition, I > know Jakarta solicited them to come aboard but Marc set them=20 > 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=20 > 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=20 > make sense > (as already discussed), but on the other hand joining JBoss=20 > (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 >=20 |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-02 19:49:34
|
>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 instance, >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. > Matt, With all due respect, What are you smoking? The reason for Jetty being integrated with jBoss is because jBoss has no web container. And that being the case, jboss needed to be integrated to a web container to avoid being chewed up by the competition. That is all well and understandable. JBoss is an excellent revolutionary product which has a lot of potential, but it's still an appserver, and WW is a framework to be used on any appserver (with webcontainer or not). I really don't see what could be gained technically by integrating WW to jBoss (and I really don't know what there is to integrate, as WW already works flawlessly in most environments... if you do, please enlighten me!). WW is also decoupled technology that is meant to be a multi-purpose framework not only for web but for any type of application. By focusing on integration we're just diluting the original intent of the product. <rant> And if what you're suffering is Struts envy, everytime you feel that way, write a JavaWorld article :) ... The only reason it has a strong userbase is because of marketing merits not technical ones. </rant> By even thinking on integrating to a specific vendor, we're already loosing userbase, as a lot of people using WW are not jBoss/Jetty, jBoss/Tomcat users and some will never be. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-02 22:04:02
|
Victor Salaman wrote: > With all due respect, What are you smoking? Please refrain from using this kind of comments. > JBoss is an excellent revolutionary product which has a lot of=20 > potential, but it's still an appserver, and WW is a framework to be use= d=20 > on any appserver (with webcontainer or not). I really don't see what=20 > could be gained technically by integrating WW to jBoss (and I really=20 > don't know what there is to integrate, as WW already works flawlessly i= n=20 > most environments... if you do, please enlighten me!). I don't think it's the technical part of it, just as there would be no=20 technical point in going with OpenSymphony. > WW is also decoupled technology that is meant to be a multi-purpose=20 > framework not only for web but for any type of application. By focusing= =20 > on integration we're just diluting the original intent of the product. Noone said integration. You did. > <rant> > And if what you're suffering is Struts envy, everytime you feel that=20 > way, write a JavaWorld article :) ... The only reason it has a strong=20 > userbase is because of marketing merits not technical ones. > </rant> We will. > By even thinking on integrating to a specific vendor, we're already=20 > loosing userbase, as a lot of people using WW are not jBoss/Jetty,=20 > jBoss/Tomcat users and some will never be. Your reasoning is peculiar since there are many other cases of projects=20 (Velocity, Struts, log4j) where they are used with servers other than=20 that of the umbrella organization (Jakarta/Tomcat). What's your point? /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-02 22:03:41
|
>My comparison with Jetty is not based on a web >container but the fact that it is a standalone project >that has hooked up with JBoss. JBoss has expanded to >provide additional offerings such as JBoss.Net which >uses Apache Axis another separate project. I believe >that WW could be independent but work closely with >JBoss to deliver some unique things. Obviously, this is >at a conceptual level but there is possibility. Maybe, >Rickard could enlighten us on some possibilities. > Cupholder holds Cup Cars transport people Airplanes transport people Computer monitors are used to display data. All of these are facts of different items and their relationship/dependencies. There's fact relation I forgot to mention: JbossGPA is microkernel which can be be used to "contain" other containers and provide a series of services. Among these services, jBoss aims to provide a suitable platform to deploy J2EE applications (a specification). This is the reason for the EJB container (EJB Spec), the Web Container (Servlets/JSP spec), jBossMQ (JMS Spec), Security (JAAS Spec), RARDeployer and friends (JCA Spec)... Additionallity to this, JBoss, having a generic services architecture, also allows you to plug in whatever feature you desire in an easy way. Those are services, and JBoss is a tool. The reason the JBoss group integrated Jetty in the core was that they desperately needed a Web container and Catalina's prupose is in life is not compatible with JBoss'... Jetty on the other hand, is a perfect match, being small and programatically configurable. 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. Microsoft with all their money, could not ever make Microsoft Bob fly... >Has Jetty lost user base because they are working with >JBoss? I don't think so. I think either directions for >WW is a win, but I disagree with your analysis. > Comparing Apples to Oranges again... Jetty has nothing to loose as it's a servlet container which is usually embedded in other applications. It's in their core purpose to be integrated to anything, as that, specifically is its purpose. Jetty has ALL to win. We just should not ride in a marketing bus without a reason since it's pointless. 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. I'll give you a couple of reasons Struts is a winner: -- Part of Apache, instant marketing. -- Exposure by Apache, Sun, and everyone that makes tools (they make money out of this you know) -- Articles written -- GOOD MARKETING I'll also give some reasons too for JBoss being successful: -- Good technology. -- Viable alternative to commercial software. -- JBoss group makes money by selling documentation, consulting, and giving concerences. -- GOOD MARKETING Now the reason for Struts being more successful than WW: -- They have marketing 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.... My point is... Instead of trying to catch someone else's wave... let's work towards creating a wave.... /V _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-02 22:13:59
|
Victor Salaman wrote: > I just see nothing that could be added to WebWork relating to JBoss,=20 > since as a tool it is used to make applications, and is therefore not=20 > part of the environment. Ok. So, since WW is so well encapsulated and generic, by the above logic=20 there would be no point in joining any umbrella organization whatsoever,=20 including OpenSymphony. Right? I can see no other conclusion from your above statement. > We just should not ride in a marketing bus without a reason since it's=20 > pointless.=20 Sure, but there is a point. Why do you think app vendors are=20 buying&integrating frameworks into their suites? Because users want as=20 complete a framework as possible, and if something is officially shipped=20 with the appserver it's sure to work with it. > There are far better ways of marketing than to be out of=20 > focus! :) I bet you love those nice "Buy me now" banner ads popping up=20 > when you're reading a news article in JDJ or JavaWorld!, and the item=20 > has nothing to do with what you're reading, or interesting to reading=20 > audience. You're rambling. Get to the point. > I'll give you a couple of reasons Struts is a winner: >=20 > -- Part of Apache, instant marketing. > -- Exposure by Apache, Sun, and everyone that makes tools (they make=20 > money out of this you know) > -- Articles written > -- GOOD MARKETING I agree. > I'll also give some reasons too for JBoss being successful: >=20 > -- Good technology. > -- Viable alternative to commercial software. > -- JBoss group makes money by selling documentation, consulting, and=20 > giving concerences. > -- GOOD MARKETING Yup. > Now the reason for Struts being more successful than WW: >=20 > -- They have marketing Absolutely, plus a head start. > Orion for example, is superior to Weblogic, but have poor docs, and=20 > extremely lame marketing, nonetheless the product is better.... but BEA= =20 > markets their product, Ironflare hmmmm.... But this is contradictory to your initial argument that WW should not=20 join JBoss. You're confusing. > My point is... Instead of trying to catch someone else's wave... let's=20 > work towards creating a wave.... If that's your point, then why the above argument which points in the=20 opposite direction!? /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-02 20:15:15
|
My comparison with Jetty is not based on a web container but the fact that it is a standalone project that has hooked up with JBoss. JBoss has expanded to provide additional offerings such as JBoss.Net which uses Apache Axis another separate project. I believe that WW could be independent but work closely with JBoss to deliver some unique things. Obviously, this is at a conceptual level but there is possibility. Maybe, Rickard could enlighten us on some possibilities. Has Jetty lost user base because they are working with JBoss? I don't think so. I think either directions for WW is a win, but I disagree with your analysis. -Matt On Tue, 02 April 2002, "Victor Salaman" wrote > > >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 instance, > >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. > > > > Matt, > > With all due respect, What are you smoking? The reason for Jetty being > integrated with jBoss is because jBoss has no web container. And that being > the case, jboss needed to be integrated to a web container to avoid being > chewed up by the competition. That is all well and understandable. > > JBoss is an excellent revolutionary product which has a lot of potential, > but it's still an appserver, and WW is a framework to be used on any > appserver (with webcontainer or not). I really don't see what could be > gained technically by integrating WW to jBoss (and I really don't know what > there is to integrate, as WW already works flawlessly in most > environments... if you do, please enlighten me!). > > WW is also decoupled technology that is meant to be a multi-purpose > framework not only for web but for any type of application. By focusing on > integration we're just diluting the original intent of the product. > > <rant> > And if what you're suffering is Struts envy, everytime you feel that way, > write a JavaWorld article :) ... The only reason it has a strong userbase is > because of marketing merits not technical ones. > </rant> > > By even thinking on integrating to a specific vendor, we're already loosing > userbase, as a lot of people using WW are not jBoss/Jetty, jBoss/Tomcat > users and some will never be. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Webwork-devel mailing list > Web...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel |
|
From: Rickard <ri...@mi...> - 2002-04-02 22:06:45
|
ma...@sm... wrote: > My comparison with Jetty is not based on a web > container but the fact that it is a standalone project > that has hooked up with JBoss. JBoss has expanded to > provide additional offerings such as JBoss.Net which > uses Apache Axis another separate project. I believe > that WW could be independent but work closely with > JBoss to deliver some unique things. Obviously, this is > at a conceptual level but there is possibility. Maybe, > Rickard could enlighten us on some possibilities. The way I see it JBoss would merely provide a good means of exposure,=20 and also be a great showcase. My intention would be to create some kind=20 of portal framework that drives JBoss.org, using WW. > Has Jetty lost user base because they are working with > JBoss? I don't think so.=20 On the contrary, since there is now no reason to not use Jetty because=20 it's "not an appserver". > I think either directions for > WW is a win, but I disagree with your analysis. I agree with your analysis. /Rickard --=20 Rickard =D6berg |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-02 22:11:19
|
>The way I see it JBoss would merely provide a good means of exposure, >and also be a great showcase. My intention would be to create some kind >of portal framework that drives JBoss.org, using WW. > You see, now this is a good application and marketing conduit. It also makes sense... Somehow your previous message was misinterpreted by Matt and Kjetil as you wanting to integrate WebWork to the JBoss core, for which I see no reason and no added benefit to either project. /V _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com |
|
From: Victor S. <vsa...@ho...> - 2002-04-02 22:26:38
|
> >Please refrain from using this kind of comments. Why? Have somehow cigarretes been banned in Sweden? :) >I don't think it's the technical part of it, just as there would be no >technical point in going with OpenSymphony. > I have a different opinion, since technically both are tools that complement each other mostly in order to deliver a great development platform to the end user. Marketing-wise, none of the two groups have a powerful exposure, so the point is all technical. > >>WW is also decoupled technology that is meant to be a multi-purpose >>framework not only for web but for any type of application. By focusing on >>integration we're just diluting the original intent of the product. > > >Noone said integration. You did. > > Actually, Matt did. <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 instance, 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. My $0.02 </quote> "I believe JBoss could use a good web tier framework" -- Matt >>By even thinking on integrating to a specific vendor, we're already >>loosing userbase, as a lot of people using WW are not jBoss/Jetty, >>jBoss/Tomcat users and some will never be. > >Your reasoning is peculiar since there are many other cases of projects >(Velocity, Struts, log4j) where they are used with servers other than that >of the umbrella organization (Jakarta/Tomcat). > >What's your point? > Those are all tools. Tools are meant to be cross-used. There's a big difference between Tools and AppServers. Would BEA replace their Web container with Tomcat or Jetty? 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. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com |
|
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: 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: 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: <ma...@sm...> - 2002-04-02 22:26:58
|
> I believe that WW could be independent but work closely with JBoss to deliver some unique things. I think you misunderstood. I thought I was clear but maybe not that WW is still independent just like Jetty, Apache Axis, etc. On Tue, 02 April 2002, "Victor Salaman" wrote > > >The way I see it JBoss would merely provide a good means of exposure, > >and also be a great showcase. My intention would be to create some kind > >of portal framework that drives JBoss.org, using WW. > > > > You see, now this is a good application and marketing conduit. It also makes > sense... Somehow your previous message was misinterpreted by Matt and Kjetil > as you wanting to integrate WebWork to the JBoss core, for which I see no > reason and no added benefit to either project. > > /V > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com |
|
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. |
|
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: <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: 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: <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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: <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: 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 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X