On Wednesday 24 October 2001 18:48, Nathan Torkington wrote: > There are three (related) questions to answer that will define the > scope of the project: > > * which problems need solving? (e.g., DBI has most of the essential > JDBC functionality) > > * how much of J2EE do we want to adopt? For instance, do people > really feel the absence of beans, or do we just want to go for > the application and web environments?
These two questions are imho related. We want to adopt solutions to what real problems J2EE solves ? When it solves a non-problem we don't want it. When it doesn't solve a problem we want something extra. But a lot of thought has probably gone into fitting J2EE to its problem space, and I think that's what we ought to steal from. > * should we write Perlish modules or reimplement Java APIs? "Perlish" varies from person to person. Whichever way we go it has to be consistent in terms of naming. And that means long method names. Also, stealing from the original API means that there will be less debate here on which persistence framework in Perl is best. > * do we solve the wider problem of CPAN quality-control or an SDK, or > just write the modules we need? No, that's not our problem. However, what we do want to do imho is to provide a consistent world-view. For instance if P5EE must include some SOAP, then we'd use SOAP::Lite behind the scenes but put the API into P5EE::SOAP which would act as a wrapper pretending to be fully within the P5EE space and providing consistent method names. -- _______________________________________________________________________ Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- CTO k n o w s c a p e : // venture knowledge agency www.knowscape.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lavish spending can be disastrous. Don't buy lavishes for a while.
