webwork-devel

Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together

[<Jim...@do...>]

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

Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together

[<ma...@sm...>]

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

RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together

[Patrick L. <pli...@ho...>]

Agreed. I'm working on OSWorkflow (it's actual in a stable state, just no 
webpage/docs/release yet). I know that the expression language in WebWork 
could be very useful in OSWorkflow.

Likewise, OSCore has some utilities (BeanUtil comes to mind) that could be 
replaced by those found in WebWork.

User management is a huge one. OSUser and WebWork could have some very nice 
integration points I'm sure (while still not requiring each other).

The list could go on for many pages I'm sure. As per Rickard's comment that 
some components in OS are good and some are... sub par, that is true. But 
that's a given, I mean not all projects can be in polished shape at the same 
time. Every project is evolving. I'm working very hard with any spare time I 
get to polish OSUser, OSCore, and OSWorkflow and provide good documentation 
and website "marketting". I think WebWork would fit very nicely in to the 
projects offered by OpenSymphony, but obviously I'm very biased here (OS 
developer and diehard WebWork user).

I'd really hate to see WebWork join up with JBoss for the reasons previsouly 
mentioned. I don't think it would be a negative move for WebWork, but I 
believe that it wouldn't really be positive either. Going with OpenSymphony 
would not only be a positive move, it would also be a good fit technically.

-Pat


>From: François Beauregard <fbe...@py...>
>Reply-To: <fbe...@py...>
>To: <web...@li...>
>Subject: RE: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
>Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:08:10 -0500
>
> > > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW.
> > Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or what would
> > that imply, specifically?
>I have not tought about all the technical possibilities but here are some:
>- Unified configuration file
>- Management/Monitoring console
>- Tag libraries
>- I am sure there are ways to take advantage of OSCache in a nice manner in
>WW beside simply just using the tags
>- I am sure we can also come up with ideas related to SiteMesh
>- There is probably also oportunities with OSUser
>- Some things in OSCore can probably be migrated into WW and then keep very
>general stuff in OSCore move other stuff out of OSCore into OSCoreEJB
>- Other great ideas that would come out of community discussions
>
>Cheers,
>___________________________
>François Beauregard, b.ing.
>Vice-président
>Recherche et développement
>Pyxis Technologies
>www.pyxis-tech.com
>
>T : (450) 681-9094, poste 102
>F : (450) 681-5758
>fbe...@py...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rickard [mailto:ri...@mi...]
>Sent: April 3, 2002 4:18 PM
>To: fbe...@py...
>Cc: web...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together
>
>
>François Beauregard wrote:
>
> > I think it makes more sense technically to integrate OS and WW.
>
>
>Even if technically there is no integration to be made? Or what would
>that imply, specifically?
>
>
> > The idea is to come up with value added components that can be used in 
>any
> > J2EE environment (including JBoss).
> > Mike explained in a previous post the reasoning behind the Open Symphony
> > name.
> > Components developed in a truly open source and community philosophy 
>that
> > work together as a Symphony.
>
>
>Yes, that is very clear to me.
>
>
> > Therefore, I vote to keep the already made decision of slowly 
>integrating
>WW
> > into OS by first :
> > - Create a section for WW on OS's site
> > - Issue a press release annoucing the collaboration, the reasonning 
>behind
> > and the goals
> > - Come up with ideas to enhance using OS components and WW together
>(unified
> > configuration file, management console, overlaps, ...). May be create a
> > subproject who would be responsible for this.
> > - Components should always be usable on their own but be easily 
>integrated
> > in a complete framework for J2EE. This promotes highly modularized and
> > customizable components.
>
>
>But this has not much to do with the decision, but rather the execution
>of the decision if made in OS's favor.
>
>
> > I also like Mike's idea of a showcase application using WW that runs on
> > JBoss and use it a promotion for JBoss, WW and OS.
> > (Please don't start a discussion on joining the three)
>
>
>Hehe...
>
>
> > Bottom line :
> > Integrating OS and WW make sense both technically and from a promotion
>point
> > of view.
> > Some combined promotion effort by JBoss and WW also makes sense.
>
>
>Is the technical point about configuration? Or is there more to it?
>
>/Rickard
>
>--
>Rickard Öberg
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Webwork-devel mailing list
>Web...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webwork-devel




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: [Webwork-devel] WW/JavaOne get together

[Rickard <ri...@mi...>]

Patrick Lightbody wrote:

> Well that was a short tenure at TSS :)


But educational.

Now on with the show.


> As for OpenSymphony, I know I'd love to see these two groups work=20
> together, I think it would make a lot of sense. As for JBoss, I don't=20
> exactly see how WW fits in with JBoss... is there a relationship I'm=20
> missing? JBoss is everything but the servlet/jsp container (which is to=
o=20
> bad since that means it depends on Tomcrap),=20


Look again. No Tomcrap.

> and WW requires only a=20
> servlet/jsp container.


Yes. My next projects will be a portal framework and stuff related to=20
Semantic Web, both of which would be highly relevant to the JBoss=20
project. So, that would be the connection, although the code as such=20
would of course be container-independent.


> Anyway, congrats on the new endevours, whatever they may be!

Well, I couldn't have imagined this a year ago, so I won't try to guess=20
what's up and coming. But it's probably going to be fun.

:-)

/Rickard

--=20
Rickard =D6berg