commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dion Gillard <>
Subject Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Date Tue, 24 May 2005 01:31:57 GMT
There are quite a few articles on my blog....

On 5/24/05, Hans Gilde <> wrote:
> 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 []
> 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 []
> 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message