On May 27, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Nico Klasens wrote:
Hello Ernst,
The below email makes me believe that your answer on 'What is
mmbase?' is different than mine. This greatly influence how we use
it and what we expect from it.
If I have to answer that question then I like to rephrase the
question to "What issue does MMbase solve?" My answer is the same
on both questions
What issue does MMbase solve? I already wrote this in my previous
mail. MMbase solves the domain of a data repository which is backed
by a database. MMbase has many data management features a data
repository requires. Examples of these are: search, notification,
access control and type, object and relationship management. A data
respository consists of a repository engine and an API to interact
with the engine. The engine has to solve every aspect of the issue
like storage, configuration, object model, security, search,
events, etc
The mmbase solution for this issue can be found inside the
mmbase.jar. 'What is mmbase?' For me, the mmbase.jar and not the
full distribution
Hai Nico,
Your proposals allowed for both models, Its clear that you and
Finalist have a different view on 'what parts' of MMBase make sense.
Ive tried over the last few replies to define that but you found that
to be too confusing, fine. But clearly here you only point to what
you think MMBase is or should be but its clearly not how we all feel.
I think this discussion should focus on how we can be so damn smart
that we allow both models since we define components that we _demand_
run in all these and can itself be implemented in all ways needed to
match the framework of choice.
Let me be clear for me i expect to use a framework (no idea which)
that will mostly use the taglibs or alteast ideas based on them. I
expect i can abstract many of the heavy work into functions
implemented in java. And i hope and expect that the components i
build or update to become components to be able to run in mine but
also the other (pluto/portlets) frameworks and i expect the same from
all other components that claim to be follow these specs.
What needs to be done is to create a few examples (even if they are
not working examples) of what a component looks like so we can all
check and get a better feeling if they would work for us and fit in
our model(s) of working.
The goals of the soon to be project is to start defining interfaces
above the bridge so for the first time we have a real shot at
creating components that we can share. This is both a techinical
issue and a management issue (the will to share) lets not forget that
upto now (as pointed out by Johannes in the proposal) this was almost
impossible and allmost nothing was shared as a result above the bridge.
Lets stay focussed on these components instead of how MMBase should
be used...
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
