On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 17:52, Rob Nagler wrote: > James Duncan writes: > > Yes, it is a boogie man. As yet I've not seen any general consensus on > > what p5ee actually should do; it seems a little premature for voting on > > a code-base for the *enterprise* edition of Perl. > > What about Java's "write once, run anywhere". It still isn't true. > Marketing is name and recognition. The first happens before the > second.
But who is going to market P5EE? As I said, release P5EEx::Blue, fine. Change its name to P5EE, fine (although I don't think its ready). But how are you going to turn that in to people using it, pointing most people at CPAN is hard enough. > J2EE is a random collection of APIs thrown together. EJB is a > disaster from a scalability point of view. Entity beans are a bad > idea that doesn't scale, but they are *Enterprise* Java Beans which > means a lot of people threw *development* money at them to find out > that they don't work. Sure, I don't disagree with that. I've felt the effects of a J2EE disaster first hand. I don't think, however that P5EEx::Blue, by changing its name to P5EE is going to to suddenly become the solution to the problems that people are trying to solve. > > Maybe later on if it has widespread acceptance across thousands of sites > > then it can have its name changed, until that point, to become Perl 5 > > Enterprise Edition requires a little more that six random people on a > > random mailing list. > > Some of us have actually worked on enterprise systems. :-) Yes. This is true. And P5EEx::Blue is a good start. As I said earlier in the thread, I think Stephen has put in a lot of good, hard work -- it is all valid stuff -- I don't think however, that it can become the signed, sealed and certified P5EE. Code matures when people get intimate with it. Right now, as far as I'm aware, no-one has tried to do anything really dirty with it (other than perhaps, Stephen). We don't know what will happen to it if they do. Ask yourself, would *you* risk your business on P5EEx::Blue right now? If the answer to that is anything less than 100% yes then it is not ready. > > Like certification, without Larry's blessing or > > that of a significant portion of the community, you've got a nice name > > for a module, not a framework for enterprise computing with Perl. > > Unfortunately most Perlers probably have never worked on enterprise > class systems. This was unfortunately the case for a lot of the > students or just-out-of-schoolers who wrote the original Java APIs > which are now called J2EE. Sure, I'm not going to disagree with that either. So, IMHO, rather than blessing something prematurely as Sun did, lets try a little harder to get it right. Lets see some more people using P5EEx::Blue and writing back with good results and contributing fixes where things are wrong. DBI didn't become the database standard in Perl just by wanting to be the database standard in Perl. It did it by consistently being better than anything else out there. Lets see the same for P5EEx::Blue, and then worry about it's name. Regards, James.
