db-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: scope? purpose? rationale?
Date Fri, 10 May 2002 16:34:04 GMT
On Sat, 11 May 2002 01:37, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> >>>yep. But not really different from how xml <--> jakarta
> >>>overlap. Both have web app frameworks both do funky stuff with XML.
>
> I don't see a great deal of conflict between xml and jakarta.

Conflict? Not conflict. Overlap or even just plain mismatching. 

The core XML stuff in Cocoon got migrated back to Avalon. Jakarta also has 
XPath engines, XML mapping frameworks. At one stage it even had things like 
resolver libraries.

XML land has RPC layers, both traditional and webservice based. At one stage 
they also had a micro kernel layer - not sure if that is true anymore. It 
also has web application frameworks and at times has had database pools, 
persistence layers etc.

Half the projects in XML could easily fit into jakarta but thats more due to 
lack of defined scope for jakarta.

> (Isn't
> that precisely what commons-collections is about?  Shouldn't a BTree
> implement SortedMap?)

Why should it?

I think JISP and other database backend support (whether it be for LDAP, 
relational, OO, xML or whatever) is kinda out of scope for a collections 
library.

> If "community" can be defined solely by having a vaguely common interest,
> especially one as broad as "data persistence and access", maybe all we
> really need is a discussion forum.  It's still not clear to me what we gain
> out of creating a container for only-conceptually related projects.

The ability to incorporate related projects that would not be  considered 
otherwise. ie It is unlikely that an implementation of CORBA PSS or an EJB 
persistence engine is likely to be in scope for jakarta (Though it is 
possible depending on who sits on PMC). It is also unlikely that a C++ 
DataAware components library is likely to get into either jakarta or xml 
projects (I see this as completely impossible in either project).

> How's this different from creating web-app-frameworks.apache.org out of
> cocoon, struts, turbine, and velocity?  (And those would likely have more
> in common than db.apache projects.)

Very little difference at all. The one significant difference is that the 
coocon, struts and turbine have choosen not to work on same top level project 
when this question was proposed last year. Cocoon also deliberately choose to 
go to xml.apache.org rather than jakarta early in it's lifecycle.

However I believe the major players for this new top level project want to 
work together to form a new community. I think  (though I could be completely 
wrong) that it was the torque guys who originally encourage OJB to come to 
Apache. Apache is here to serve the needs of its developers and hence why it 
will likely be a success.

Creating a new top level project is going to give a huge boost to these 
projects awareness and gather a lot more developer attention. Hopefully 
everyone will flock to using these new projects because of the publicity, the 
quality of the projects and so forth. 

Everyone knows PoolMan as a quality product. I hear great things about OJB and 
I am big fan of torque (think it is hugely under-marketed aswell). Together I 
think all of those projects are going to get more users and more developers 
than if they don't "co-market" to use marketese term. And hopefully Torque 
will finally get more advertising like it deserves ;)

It is all about mindspace and wishes of developers. It is a great opportunity 
for them and they want to do it so it going to get done ;)

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald


Mime
View raw message