incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <mart...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Web20Kit: A Web 2.0 technology evaluation kit
Date Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:51:20 GMT
Yeah, an association with WebKit was my first assumption as well.

My greater concern, though, is purporting to compare technologies using one
application with a very specific purpose. Certain technologies may shine in
one application scenario and suck in others, while other technologies may
show quite the opposite characteristics. Picking one application with which
to demonstrate and, especially, compare a set of technologies doesn't tell a
particularly useful story unless you happen to be building just that type of
application. Sadly, many people don't take that into account, so that a
technology demonstration such as this may lead them in non-optimal
directions.

Incidentally, there also appear to be assumptions about the architecture.
For example, it looks like the use of a database is assumed, whereas in
certain applications, a content repository might be more appropriate.
Similarly, the use of a server-side web framework versus directly calling
web services. There are many, many more options to consider.

--
Martin Cooper


On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Brett Porter <brett.porter@gmail.com>wrote:

> Without too much thought into the rest of it just now, the first thing
> I thought was that this would have something to do with WebKit, which
> it doesn't and would probably be very confusing?
>
> - Brett
>
> 2008/8/27 Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com>:
> > This is a proposal to incubate
> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Web20KitProposal
> >
> > We're looking for a couple more mentors.
> >
> > Web20Kit
> >
> > Abstract
> > Web20Kit is a web 2.0 toolkit to help developers evaluate the
> suitability,
> > functionality and performance of various web technologies by implementing
> a
> > reasonably complex application in several different technologies.
> >
> > Proposal
> > Web20Kit will develop an example application to understand the benefits,
> > performance, and scalability of popular web technologies. Multiple
> > implementations of the application are planned - each providing the same
> > functionality but staying true to the philosophy of its base
> > language/framework.
> >
> > Background
> > Most web 2.0 sites today use open source languages and frameworks such as
> > PHP, Ruby on Rails, and Java EE to develop their applications.
> Deployments
> > of these applications also use popular open source servers such as Apache
> > httpd, Tomcat, MySQL, Memcache, and Glassfish. Many other
> > servers/technologies such as lighttpd, mogileFS, mongrels, JRuby are also
> > gaining popularity.
> >
> > With the myriad technologies available, it is not easy to understand how
> > they differ, especially in terms of performance and scalability. With
> varied
> > levels of documentation available for some open source applications, it
> is
> > also quite difficult for a web 2.0 startup to understand the correct
> usage
> > of these technologies so that they don't become a bottleneck as their
> site
> > grows.
> >
> > Rationale
> > Web2.0kit is a toolkit that will attempt to address the above issues.
> >
> > What it does
> >
> > Web20Kit defines an example web 2.0 application (the initial
> implementation
> > uses an events site somewhat like yahoo.com/upcoming) and provides three
> > implementations: PHP, Java EE, and Ruby on Rails. The toolkit will also
> > define ways to drive load against the application in order to measure
> > performance.
> >
> > As developers join the project, they can implement the same application
> > using their favorite web frameworks and compare their implementations to
> > others.
> >
> > What you can learn from it
> >
> > a) Understand how to use various web 2.0 technologies such as AJAX,
> > memcached, mogileFS etc. in the creation of your own application. Use the
> > code in the application to understand the subtle complexities involved
> and
> > how to get around issues with these technologies.
> >
> > b) Evaluate the differences in the implementations: PHP, Ruby on Rails,
> Java
> > EE, and other contributed implementations to understand which might best
> > work for your situation.
> >
> > c) Within each language implementation, evaluate different infrastructure
> > technologies by changing the servers used (e.g: apache vs lighttpd, MySQL
> vs
> > PostgreSQL, Ruby vs Jruby etc.)
> >
> > d) Drive load against the application to evaluate the performance and
> > scalability of the chosen platform.
> >
> > e) Experiment with different algorithms (e.g. memcache locking, a
> different
> > DB access API) by replacing portions of code in the application.
> >
> > A robust, community-developed standard implementations of a web 2.0
> > application using different technologies will enable developers to
> compare
> > and contrast these technologies in a manner that does not exist today. By
> > providing excellent sample implementations of a concrete application that
> is
> > available to everyone, we will enable faster and easier application
> > development for users. Although we list three implementations in this
> > proposal, we encourage others to come up with many more using other
> language
> > stacks and/or frameworks e.g. Spring framework, Python etc.
> >
> > Current Status
> > This is a new project with some sample not-ready-for-prime-time code.
> >
> > Meritocracy
> > The initial developers are very familiar with meritocratic open source
> > development, both at Apache and elsewhere. Apache was chosen specifically
> > because the initial developers want to encourage this style of
> development
> > for the project.
> >
> > Community
> > Web20Kit seeks to create developer and user communities during
> incubation.
> >
> > Core Developers
> > The initial core developers are Sun Microsystems, Inc. employees, and
> > faculty and students at UC Berkeley. We hope to expand this very quickly.
> >
> > Alignment
> > The developers of the Web20Kit want to work with the Apache Software
> > Foundation specifically because Apache has proven to provide a strong
> > foundation and set of practices for community-based development.
> >
> > Known RisksOrphaned products
> > This project has a lot of enthusiasm among the core developers, has
> ongoing
> > development, and is not orphaned.
> >
> > Inexperience with Open Source
> > The initial developers are well-versed in open source methodologies and
> > practices.
> >
> > Homogenous Developers
> > The initial group of developers is from two organizations. We would like
> to
> > expand this and that is a primary reason for bringing this project to
> > Apache.
> >
> > Reliance on Salaried Developers
> > Although part of the initial development team are students, the core
> > developers are employed by Sun Microsystems.
> >
> > Relationships with Other Apache Products
> > None in particular, except that Apache HTTPD is the most common place to
> run
> > PHP, and which the initial PHP implementation uses.
> >
> > A Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand
> > We believe in the processes, systems, and framework Apache has put in
> place.
> > The brand is nice, but is not why we wish to come to Apache.
> >
> > DocumentationInitial Source
> > Sun Microsystems Inc. intends to donate code for their PHP implementation
> of
> > the sample events application as well as code to drive load against the
> > application. UC Berkeley intends to donate code for the Ruby on Rails
> > implementation.
> >
> > This code is still a work in progress and will be provided primarily as a
> > starting place for a much more robust, community- developed
> implementation.
> >
> > External DependenciesRequired Resources
> > Developer mailing lists
> >  web20kit-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >  web20kit-commits@incubator.apache.org
> >  web20kit-private@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > A subversion repository
> >
> > A JIRA issue tracker
> >
> > Initial Committers
> >        •
> > Akara Sucharitakul <
> >  akara.sucharitakul@sun.com> Shanti Subramanyam <
> >  shanti.subramanyam@sun.com> Binu John <
> >  binu.john@sun.com> Kim Lichong <
> > kim.lichong@sun.com> William Sobel <
> >  wsobel@eecs.berkeley.edu> Arthur Klepchukov <
> >  arthur.klepchukov@gmail.com> Craig Russell <
> >  craig.russell@sun.com>
> > SponsorsChampion
> >        •
> > Craig Russell <
> >  craig.russell@sun.com>
> > Nominated Mentors
> >        •
> > Craig Russell <
> >  craig.russell@sun.com>
> > Sponsoring Entity
> > The Apache Incubator.
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> Blog: http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message