Hi,
The voting tells me that people are
1. eager to encourage experimentation and development
2. wary of putting it in the P5EE namespace
My development and experimentation continue of course.
However, I have arrived at the following conclusions.
1. It is not advantageous to try to make a codebase in the P5EE namespace.
It is too easy for people to misunderstand what is
trying to be done. The namespace evokes a sense that its
contents must be "official" or "sanctioned" or "complete"
or "bullet-proof" more than other namespaces.
2. The P5EE project should focus on explaining the various
solutions to the Enterprise Development problem rather than
trying to adopt or create a single one at this point.
Only if and when one solution stands out compellingly from
the others in actual usage might the question of a single
P5EE Blueprint be revisited.
3. The P5EE project can still host promising (and maybe even
contradictory) projects in its CVS.
They do not need to claim the P5EE namespace even if they
live in the P5EE CVS. i.e.
http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/p5ee/P5EEx
http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/p5ee/Some-Distribution
Tatsuhiko likened this to the Jakarta project at
Apache.org which hosts a variety of Java projects, some
of which are mutually exclusive.
4. I plan to repackage/refactor P5EEx::Blue as
App::Context, App::Repository, and App::Widget.
I would prefer to do this in the P5EE CVS repository as the
first three projects. Let me know what you think about this
idea on this list. In the future, such project nominations
will be put to a vote.
Stephen
