Leo Simons wrote: > 2) a statement of intent in important places on the website. > I'm guessing that putting "we would like to see tomcat > integrate with avalon" on the projects' respective websites > would mean that such will happen sooner.
My concern would be that this promotes a "We are Borg" attitude. Why would "we" like to see Avalon integrate with Tomcat? Why not Jetty or Resin? If our committers are choosing to use Tomcat because it meets their real-life needs, then why would "we" have to tell them that. Won't they just do it because they need it? IMHO, committers should decide what is best for their product first. If we all do that, and we all create best-of-breed products, then interoperability will be a natural occurance. If it is not a natural occurance, then we are mixing politics with technology ... We would simply be replacing the Dark Lords with a Dark Lady. AFAIK, we don't tell Jakarta committers to use Ant. They choose Ant because it is a great tool. The same should go for every Jakarta or ASF product. Meanwhile, I do think documenting how J2SE (Standard Edition) technologies can provide an end-to-end solution is a great idea. For example, jGuru is running on Resin, Lucene, James, and JSPs. Scales great, and not an EJB to be found. So, should we (meaning I) write that up as a case study and post it on the site? Or, pass because they are not using Tomcat? AFAIK, Apache is part of the JS2E group, rather than the J2EE group, so it seems to me that promoting J2SE solutions is a natural thing for us to do, regardless of who provides the underlying product. -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY US -- Developing Java Web Applications with Struts -- Tel: +1 585 737-3463 -- Web: http://husted.com/struts -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
