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 16:36:09 GMT
Egads. Sound like I just graduated from marketing 101 with an F grade. That 
will teach me to write email at 3 am ;)

On Sat, 11 May 2002 02:34, Peter Donald wrote:
> 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