I found this post to the modperl list to be really refreshing and
interesting. I would love to be involved in such an initiative....
>From: Stephen Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>What about the concept of a P2EE specification?
>(P2EE is pronounced "pitooey", as in "I spit on the notion that
>Java is the only language for enterprise-capable web application
>development". It is also pronounced "pee-two-ee-ee" when managers
>are around and you want to convince them it is a legit technology
>for your next project.)
>(I also note that "p2ee.org" is not yet taken as a domain.)
>
>We all know that there will never be a single P2EE specification.
>This is because there will be those who think that one template system/
>data persistence layer/XML Library/etc., combination is better than
another.
>
>However, individual perl gurus could pull together their list of
>consistent, complementary, and quality API's/modules (and how to
>use them) in a spec and call it their vision of P2EE.
>
>This would be very valuable to those just getting started.
>They understand that There's More Than One Way To Do It
>(tmtowtdi), but at least they can survey how various perl gurus have
>integrated the many different technologies before them and learn
>at least One Good Way To Do It from each spec.
>
>This method of competing P2EE visions
>
> * is decentralized and dynamic (not centralized and unchanging),
> * is merit-centric (P2EE visions will wax and wane based on merit), and
> * provides a way that individual modules can rise above the crowd.
>
>I can envision that module authors would work with the leading P2EE spec
>authors to ensure that their modules fit into the vision. If the P2EE
>spec authors like the modules, they get included in that particular spec.
>In this way individual modules are naturally subjected to a certain form
>of peer-review in order to qualify for a spec. In return, the visibility
>of the module is increased because of the spec. If someone doesn't like
>the existing P2EE specs, they can create their own.
>
>Perhaps the various P2EE specs could be supported on CPAN with Bundles.
>
>I also think it would be *much* easier to rate/rank P2EE specs than
>individual modules on CPAN. (i.e. this goal is attainable with a finite
>amount of effort)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Stephen
