On 06 Dec 2005, at 12:04, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Steven Noels wrote:
On 06 Dec 2005, at 09:59, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Struts has Shale
Meeep. Buzzzz. Wrong.
Struts has Craig.
And Tapestry has Howard and Spring has Rod. What do you mean?
I meant to say that Struts is a bad example since it has a benevolent,
dedicated person that is cheered upon by a league of grateful groupies,
who will follow him anywhere (up to their own imagination's limits).
Ditto with Tapestry and Spring and RoR. With Cocoon, there's as much
direction as there's developers, and users even: it's big and bloated
and lacks direction. And I honestly believe it's the community and
consensus tax which make it virtually impossible to create such a
unified direction. So so far, I believe we're about to say the same
thing, except that I'm pessimistic (as usual).
But you sniped away what I really meant to say, actually. That blocks
and interfaces, however they come to into existence, are needed - not
only for technical but mostly for community reasons: to provide
non-community-shepherded code with its own release and life cycle. To
provide users with something they can rely upon. Not the next cool
thing down the road, or an experimentation platform for non-enduring
geeks. Or a code graveyard for a bunch of consultants.
I fail to see how giving something fancy names will change that model.
So consequentially, maybe it's the community that needs to change. I'm
surprised to finally see evidence of an anti-OSGI camp in Cocoon. Not
that this surprises me, but it's just sad that this hasn't been
clarified much earlier. That damned community tax again, I guess. Waste
of time and energy for everyone.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought Open Source Java & XML
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
