On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 06:33, Sam Ruby wrote: > John McNally wrote: > > -1. > > Jakarta already has two webapp frameworks and I do not see any reason to > > add another. > > It is a non-goal of Jakarta to have only one webapp framework, or to > limit itself to two. > > - Sam Ruby >
If a project is proposed that overlaps a (or a few) current project, I just think the bar needs to be a bit higher for approval. If someone proposed another java regex package, I think many people would want to see distinguishing features and even if a few existed, it should be clear that it would be extremely difficult to add the functionality to one of the current projects or an attempt has been made to work with one of the current projects and the communities are incompatible. With database connection pools, I think there were 4 implementations floating around the jakarta projects. When I started to look at upgrading turbine's version or dropping it for one with the features I was after, I was unable to find a replacement. This included a survey outside jakarta where I investigated PoolMan. Unfortunately I did not look into avalon's pool which may have met my requirements, but misconceptions led me to overlook it. So I set about to create the cp that implemented the current api's as specified by jdbc. I still did not want to do this within turbine, so I engaged the connection pool project in the commons. Now it turns out the developer of PoolMan wanted to stop development and it was proposed that it be brought to apache. I would have said the same thing: jakarta already has a couple database connection pools, why do we need this one. And in addition the ones that are here already implement the latest specifications, while this proposed one does not. But PoolMan has name recognition, so it is able to overcome my resistance to add YetAnotherDBCP. And it has a member of Apache who is pushing its adoption, which helps to alay my concerns about lack of a developer community, though not completely. I think one of the goals of jakarta is to create high quality implementations of recognized standards and another is to try to create standards where they do not formally exist by developing a high quality technology that is able to become a defacto standard. As much as I hate it, JSP is the recognized standard for webapp development. Jakarta's development of a general purpose java templating technology, Velocity, is a valid alternative and is not even in direct conflict with JSP. But it is a simple, powerful alternative to JSP as well. Does tapestry give us another alternate template system that is only usable within the framework? Granted I could try to investigate Tapestry in depth to answer all my reservations, but I'm busy and on the surface the project seems to overlap several existing projects. My -1 is not a statement that Turbine (or Struts, Velocity, Avalon) should not have any competitors within Jakarta. I would prefer that Tapestry make the case that it offers something that these projects do not and I don't think the original proposal makes the case forcefully enough. john mcnally -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
