Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Michael Wechner wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Steven Noels wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Has anyone attended Oscom in Berkeley? Comments, feelings?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I have been there. OSCOM at Berkeley was great (well, I was one
>> of the organizers;-)
>>
>> Zope/Plone ruled as the Python community would probably say. I guess
>> at least 80% of the people were there because of them.
>>
>> I very much believe in Cocoon, Java, XML, XSLT and Wyona (of course),
>> but I am getting tired of this "religion thing" and I think one can
>> learn and use a lot
>> from "other" projects and there is a lot of collaboration possible if
>> you really want to cross the bridge.
>>
>> Xopus and Bitflux make us certainly coming closer, because "we" all
>> can need them. But there are other topics which are going to help us to
>> collaborate.
>>
>> Concerning Cocoon, I think it would be very important to advertise more
>> that you can use Python (and PHP?) within XSP. I think one of the
>> reasons why the Apache Server project is so successfull is because it
>> is kind of neutral and you can use it with all kind of languages.
>
>
> Don't want to rain on the party, but I think the HTTPD project is one of
> the most religious on programming languages I've ever seen. And for a
> good reason, I might say.
>
> When the Apache 2.0 project was starting, they made a votation to ask
> which programming language Apache 2.0 should be written with. There were
> all sorts of candidates (including C++, Java and Python) but they
> decided (by a bulgarian majority) to remain on C.
>
> I would expect the same to happen in all big projects like Cocoon or
> Zope: what do you think it would be a reaction to make a formal votation
> on the Zope people on writing Zope 3 in Java?
>
> The fact that you can use Apache with all kinds of languages is
> something you gain from its modularity not from some 'magic' political
> ability of the core group.
I didn't mean the core, but modularity is what I was refering to (see
above). So it seems that we agree.
>
> SoC all over again.
>
> But can Cocoon be considered 'religious' about programming language
> support?
>
> We support both PHP and Python. Thru BSF, we could support several tens
> of scripting languages (even Perl)... but the crude fact is: NOBODY CARES!
No, people care, but they just don't know. We can do a poll at the next
conference ;-)
>
> One thing is crossing the bridge to talk to others (something I was
> never afraid of doing... in fact, I keep installing new Zope releases to
> see if we can steal something from them :)
very good, but I wouldn't call it "steal" but I would rather use he term
"synergy".
one other thing is talking
> about 'working together to make one big open CMS'.
I don't want to create one big open CMS, I am not naive.
I have learnt a lot from convincing Xopus and Bitflux to open source
their code. Humans are quite predictable at some point, but sometimes
they become different for whatever reasons.
>
> Which is totally stupid given the striking differences between the
> current open CMS solutions.
Well, they will consolidate, at least on the feature set.
>
> So, while Zope guys will never base their internal architecture on XML,
> Cocoon will never abandon it. While Zope will envy out pipeline model,
> they have too much community inertia.
Maybe, but maybe not. Paul Everitt from Zope has started to cross the
bridge.
>
> So, IMO, programming languages are simply an excuse: the differences are
> *much* deeper. Even a project like OpenCMS, which is java based, works
> as a servlet and so on, it's as far from Wyona as you could think.
yeah, but why? People like to identify themselves with something, that's
why they are wearing clothes with brandnames on it, else they feel lost
and alone and not part of a peergroup. To make the identification
stronger they start to create boundaries, religions or whatever you want
to call it.
>
> Do you really think that working together will increase our potentials?
> You deeply underestimate the energy it takes to merge two different
> communities into one: it's almost impossible. While it's piece of cake
> to fragment one single community into more than one.
I know, it's a big effort to make people collaborate, but I think it's
worth it.
>
> Don't get me wrong: talking together is a great thing. But the only
> thing I got from the first OSCOM was "we need to talk more together".
> Did we, at least, came to the point that we know *what* we should talk
> together about?
Well, OSCOM2 was pretty different already. It takes time to build trust
and it takes time to interop.
I really appreciate your reply, because it keeps the discussion going
and maybe makes some other people think as well.
Thanks
Michael
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
