Two more proposals then:
- Jelly: scripts in XML
(scripts are a form of configuration... I like the naming)
- Jelly: mouldable XML
In the latter I think I should be able to get a few pictures out of
moudling jell-o with my kids... this may be modern transluscent...
I suggest we do not consider
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 7:59 PM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Users List'
Subject: RE: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Absolutely. That's actually where I started with Jelly. I meant to copy all
of it to the Wiki, but never had the time. That's what I meant by we
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
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
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
be in business.
Myself included.
-Original Message-
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:32 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
There are quite a few articles on my blog
On 5/24/05, Hans
Libbrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
This seems to be another voice in favour of even changing Jakarta
Commons Jelly... I am really surprised and would make sure I
Also, should keep in mind that if you use too much Jelly (or Jello, as
other may preffer), it can get quite messy ;)
And, although it's very flexible and appealing, only kids like to play
with it.
Dan Madoni wrote:
Also Jelly (in British or Jello in American) can be molded to fit any shape
: Paul Libbrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:52 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Le 16 mai 05, à 19:11, Dan Madoni a écrit :
...but Jelly? It might as well be called Blah or Hmmm, (don't
get any
ideas
On 5/19/05, Dan Madoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
I can actually go along with the explanation of Jelly being molded into any
shape, although that's a bit of a stretch of the word Jelly, as people
don't really think of jelly as something you mold around something else.
That is, I'll put
, (don't get any
ideas). :)
-Original Message-
From: Paul Libbrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
This seems to be another voice in favour of even changing Jakarta
My first thought was a book I read in college about requirements called
Nailing jelly to a tree - but personally I find it easier to remember
and associate with a product, once I know what it is, than many other
more descriptive names, especially the litany of products based on acronyms.
Dan
: Lauren Bish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:44 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
My first thought was a book I read in college about requirements called
Nailing jelly to a tree - but personally I find it easier
Le 16 mai 05, à 19:11, Dan Madoni a écrit :
...but Jelly? It might as well be called Blah or Hmmm, (don't
get any
ideas). :)
re-interpreting differently... (really playing!):
jelly
glue along XML pipelines
would be much understandable, or ?
Doesn't jelly make you think, at least, to Jell-O
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
This seems to be another voice in favour of even changing Jakarta
Commons Jelly... I am really surprised and would make sure I understand
it correctly.
Changing
Le 11 mai 05, à 19:42, Dan Madoni a écrit :
Perhaps a better term that isn't as restrictive as Rich
Configuration or
as strange as Executable XML might be Active XML Processing, or
something like that. Such a term doesn't imply that you'll use it for
programming, and instead suggests that it's
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
I agree executable XML may suck
With an emphasis on may ;-)
This seems to be a common feeling. I never understood how most people
dismiss so easily the fact that processing semantics written in XML are
far
Le 11 mai 05, à 11:29, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
The best sub-title I found thus far was mix-and-match that's posted
in one of the documentation pages.
How about the following ?
Apache Commons Jelly
glue along XML pipelines
(with side-effect!)
paul
Hi
Just my one cent
I was just looking for Rich Configuration when I
have choosen to use Jelly for our project.
And I got what I was looking for.
Executable XML does not correspond to what it is and
plus it seems to me that it not what people are
looking for.
I think that in maven, for
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
I agree executable XML may suck
With an emphasis on may ;-)
This seems to be a common feeling. I never understood how most people
dismiss so easily the fact that processing semantics written in XML are
far more accessible (for humans and programs alike) than their non-XML
or bother to investigate
its usefulness.
-Original Message-
From: Emmanouil Batsis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:25 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
I agree executable XML may suck
Dan,
This comes up to the point to re-consider the marketing of Jelly as we
all wish to cut a release 1.0 soon!
I agree executable XML may suck but I think rich configuration is
also quite old fashioned and is not that appropriate since there
still is a notion of execution (or processing or
, 2005 2:30 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [Jelly] Executable XML vs. Rich Configuration
Dan,
This comes up to the point to re-consider the marketing of Jelly as we
all wish to cut a release 1.0 soon!
I agree executable XML may suck but I think rich configuration is
also quite old
23 matches
Mail list logo
