There are quite a few articles on my blog.... On 5/24/05, Hans Gilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I happen to agree with you, except that I think my take is different than > yours. > > Jelly could definitely use an upgrade to the documentation. Actually, the > current docs are all good, but we could use more tutorials, how-to's and > real world examples. In fact, I think that Jelly suffers the most from the > lack of time on the part of the committers. We all pretty much know what > needs to be done but all we ever have time to do is fix bugs. > > I'll bet that if there were more in the way of demonstration of how Jelly > can be used, people would find uses for it left and right. Essentially, it > makes a pretty good tool for writing just about any XML functionality that > you can think of. > > We have a Wiki, so anyone can contribute. Maybe you could do an article > about your project? With some examples? Seriously, that kind of thing is the > best marketing an OSS project can get. > > In terms of corporate "positioning" of Jelly, I happen to think that all the > harsh stuff you've read about it is a side effect of a positioning effort. > You see, Jelly was originally tied to Maven, which was dramatically over > hyped when it was first rolled out. Had there been less hype, both Maven and > Jelly would have had the time they needed to become mature and stable before > being touted as the next big thing. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Madoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:02 PM > To: 'Jakarta Commons Users List' > Subject: RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration > > "Marketing" to the tune of "It slices! It dices! It mows your lawn!" > certainly doesn't belong in OSS, which is one reason why folks gravitate > toward it, (i.e. to get away from all the marketing BS). > > However, "Marketing" as in "OSS is a serious alternative and here's why", or > "this is an XML scripting engine, we believe you will benefit from it, and > here's why" is extremely important for OSS and for projects like Jelly. As > long as open-source remains focused on being an ideological statement > against the likes of Microsoft rather than maturing into a real alternative > that can speak corporate-ese, it won't fully realize its goal of > establishing OSS communities like Apache as the best source for useful and > reliable software. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul DeCoursey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 6:37 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Users List > Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration > > I like the Jelly name as well. I use it for all kinds of things, > mostly scripting. I can't say I have ever used it for configuration. > As far as any sort of name change, I don't think it a good idea. It > may need better marketing, but does that even fit into the open source > world? > > Paul > > On May 21, 2005, at 12:52 AM, Hans Gilde wrote: > > > My 2 cents: I got into Jelly as a framework for building Swing GUIs. > > In this > > case, the Tag model works very well and the ability to implement the > > scripting is also extremely useful. > > > > Unfortunately, the company I did it for laid me off and I have to > > start the > > whole framework from scratch if I want to publish it open source. > > However, I > > find Jelly to be rather more than configuration... the name Jelly > > really > > seems to fit for me. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
-- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
