xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:45:27 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: <Scott_Boag@lotus.com>
To: <general@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal

> "Ted Leung" <twleung@sauria.com> wrote:
> > it could be
> > interpreted as
> > "cool XML stuff".
> I was trying to say much more than that.  I was trying to articulate an
> architectual vision based on pipe components, through which flows the XML
> information set.  And was trying to state some concrete goals as to what
> should be trying to achieve.

I know you were trying to do that, and I wasn't trying to be difficult.  I
was trying
to point out that once you take out the standards bit, then it becomes much
harder to have a crisp definition.  That's why the standards bit is
because it brings crispness.  Unfortunately, I think it's too constraining.

> It's worth carefully comparing our mission statement with Jakarta's.
> mission statement is:
> Provide commercial-quality server solutions based on the Java Platform
> are developed in an open and cooperative fashion.
> We need to have a different vision from Jakarta.  I believe the
> may be something along the lines of:
> Jakarta --> fundamentally a Java thought.
> xml.apache.org -->  fundamentally an XML thought.

I agree that xml.apache.org projects should have XML at the core of what
the project is about.  So we don't take fooComponent just because it uses
an XML configuration file.   Would it really be so horrible if we had
that could either fit at Jakarta or XML?  As we're discussing in the

> Jakarta --> building a large server framework, somewhat entangled.
> xml.apache.org -->  should be a set of loosely coupled components, or
> building blocks, that talk via standards based on the W3C XML information
> set.
> Sam Ruby, perhaps you can talk about Jakarta vs. xml.apache.org?  I see it
> as an awfully fuzzy line, and a line that should be made more apparent.

Is it really that fuzzy?  There are a whole ton of things going on over in
that have nothing to do with XML, unless you count deployment descriptors
as XML.

> > The projects that most represent innovation to me are Cocoon, Ant,
> Struts,
> > Turbine,
> > and Velocity.   Most of our (XML) current projects are building blooks
> for
> > the really
> > cool stuff.
> I'm not sure we should be about "cool".  I think that's more Jakarta.  I
> like creating strong building blocks, and having other people assemble
> those blocks in various ways. I would rather our central thought be about
> information exchange, presentation, and access through XML, and clean
> loosly coupled componentry, rather than "cool" or even broad-level
> "innovation".  In a lot of ways, implementing standards is the opposite of
> innovation.

If you don't like "cool" thats fine by me.  I've heard mention of a tighter
relationship between XML and Jakarta.  Perhaps now is the right time to
explore this.  I can't believe that the only good thoughts about
exchange, presentation, and access through XML are being thought of by
W3C, OASIS, etc.   We have some very good thinkers here.   I want this
to be an environment where some of those thoughts can grow.

One of the critical tests that the open-source movement faces is whether
or not it can actually do something new, or whether it can only reimplement
stuff that someone else has done.   I'd like to see if this project can help
answer that question.   Perhaps we need to rethink our entire approach to
accepting / initiating projects.   There's been talk of an incubator project
the past.  Defined correctly, I think that my concerns could be statisfied
such a thing.


In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message