db-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>
Subject Re: scope? purpose? rationale?
Date Fri, 10 May 2002 22:10:39 GMT
On 5/10/02 12:17 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver@apache.org> wrote:

> 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.

Sorry - will have posted tomorrow.  Forgot to ask dirk.

> 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

Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.

View raw message