commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hans Gilde <hgilde+comm...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Date Mon, 23 May 2005 19:08:06 GMT
I happen to agree with you, except that I think my take is different than
yours.

Jelly could definitely use an upgrade to the documentation. Actually, the
current docs are all good, but we could use more tutorials, how-to's and
real world examples. In fact, I think that Jelly suffers the most from the
lack of time on the part of the committers. We all pretty much know what
needs to be done but all we ever have time to do is fix bugs.

I'll bet that if there were more in the way of demonstration of how Jelly
can be used, people would find uses for it left and right. Essentially, it
makes a pretty good tool for writing just about any XML functionality that
you can think of.

We have a Wiki, so anyone can contribute. Maybe you could do an article
about your project? With some examples? Seriously, that kind of thing is the
best marketing an OSS project can get.

In terms of corporate "positioning" of Jelly, I happen to think that all the
harsh stuff you've read about it is a side effect of a positioning effort.
You see, Jelly was originally tied to Maven, which was dramatically over
hyped when it was first rolled out. Had there been less hype, both Maven and
Jelly would have had the time they needed to become mature and stable before
being touted as the next big thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Madoni [mailto:Dan.Madoni@ditech.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:02 PM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Users List'
Subject: RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

"Marketing" to the tune of "It slices! It dices! It mows your lawn!"
certainly doesn't belong in OSS, which is one reason why folks gravitate
toward it, (i.e. to get away from all the marketing BS).

However, "Marketing" as in "OSS is a serious alternative and here's why", or
"this is an XML scripting engine, we believe you will benefit from it, and
here's why" is extremely important for OSS and for projects like Jelly. As
long as open-source remains focused on being an ideological statement
against the likes of Microsoft rather than maturing into a real alternative
that can speak corporate-ese, it won't fully realize its goal of
establishing OSS communities like Apache as the best source for useful and
reliable software. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul DeCoursey [mailto:paul@decoursey.net] 
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:37 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration

I like the Jelly name as well.  I use it for all kinds of things, 
mostly scripting.  I can't say I have ever used it for configuration. 
As far as any sort of name change, I don't think it a good idea.  It 
may need better marketing, but does that even fit into the open source 
world?

Paul

On May 21, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Hans Gilde wrote:

> My 2 cents: I got into Jelly as a framework for building Swing GUIs. 
> In this
> case, the Tag model works very well and the ability to implement the
> scripting is also extremely useful.
>
> Unfortunately, the company I did it for laid me off and I have to 
> start the
> whole framework from scratch if I want to publish it open source. 
> However, I
> find Jelly to be rather more than configuration... the name Jelly 
> really
> seems to fit for me.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message