db-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: scope? purpose? rationale?
Date Fri, 10 May 2002 16:17:54 GMT
Excellent questions. Geir I guess has close sourced his proposal for the 
moment ;-) -- but I think Geir that we should take note all of these and 
answer and structure the proposal to answer them in advance. No doubt 
the same questions will be asked again later by those who get the 
binding vote.

Thanks,

Andy

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. I don't 
> see a sub-sub-project of either sub-project that's painfully out of 
> place where it is now. There is some overlap, but the partitioning of 
> projects seems pretty clear. But I do see potentially signficant 
> overlap between db.apache and both xml.apache and jakarta.apache. Few 
> if any of the projects we've been considering for db.apache wouldn't 
> fit cleanly into either xml.apache or jakarta.apache. Many of the 
> projects currently in xml and jakarta fall under a "data persistence 
> and access" umbrella. (Isn't that precisely what commons-collections 
> is about? Shouldn't a BTree implement SortedMap?)
>
> Ellis replied:
>
>>> It's a little different because it seems each of the other projects 
>>> are more technology centric (Jakarta/Java, Perl, PHP, TCL, XML) and not
>>> application/mission centric with the major exception of httpd. So 
>>> 'db' is going to break that mold a bit more and be application 
>>> specific like httpd?
>>
>
> Geir replied:
>
>> Definitely. That's one of the fundamental principles - as you tend to 
>> bring a broad mix of things to solve data
>> related problems, having a project and community comfortable with 
>> that idea should work really well.
>
>
> Maybe. It seems to me that it may be just as likely that the Java 
> parts of db.apache will have more in common with (and more to the 
> point, share more code with) jakarta.apache than with anything else in 
> db, and that the XML parts of db.apache will have more in common with 
> xml.apache than anything else in db, etc.
>
> To put it another way, it seems to me that the current top-level 
> apache projects are either built around a specific flagship product 
> (httpd, Perl [mod_perl], Tcl [mod_tcl]) or around a specific language 
> (Jakarta, XML, PHP), or started as the former and moved toward the 
> latter (this seems to be the trend). Adding another top-level project 
> that's really just Java and XML based stuff (and realistically, that's 
> what we've been talking about) would seem to add to rather than reduce 
> the confusion (and add some, however minor, bureaucratic-overhead 
> along the way).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> - Rod
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>




Mime
View raw message