On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Selena Sol wrote:
> I found this post to the modperl list to be really refreshing and
> interesting. I would love to be involved in such an initiative....
It's been taken care of already at
CPANTS http://lists.perl.org/showlist.cgi?name=perl-qa
if you want to contribute, please, get onto this list.
> >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
>
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://localhost/ http://eXtropia.com/
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
