On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 14:41, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> > We should seriously consider establishing a "standards" community
> > to establish supporting efforts such as this.
> This list is our "standards" community.
While trying to maintain a tone of fairness I have to state that,
the history of flame wars on this list really injured the productivity
of the project and the involvement of "all" the parties. I don't think
its possible to have a standard with only one party present at the table.
All the Apache projects interested in this spec have to stay at the table,
everyone has to be willing to make compromises to maintain the groups
cohesion. If this list is going to be a "standards community" everyone
needs to stay involved.
> > CJAN been hard at work with alot of "documentation effort". What are
> > individuals thoughts on this project and its model?
> That it has nothing to show, only ideas and musings. We already have
> working systems, and also a possible 2.0 spec that has come out of
> discussions here.
> We still have to finish to implement the 1.0 spec at Apache, and IMHO
> this is what we should focus ATM.
Yes, a spec is pretty much useless without actual tools that are capable of
applying it, and spec isn't a "standard" unless all tools agree to use
maintain the contracts defined within it. If any dominant tool goes renegade
or egotistical and begins altering the contract, then...so much for a
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 13:58, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 13:20, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > I looked through the documentation and the proposals really are not
> > much. They're one pager brain dumps of nice to haves and standards that
> > are to be followed. There really is not much to cjan.org at this point
> > besides the web façade and the sf.net project.
I was unsure what had actually been accomplished by CJAN, if an actual
network existed or not. Unfortunately, without a substantial content
base, user-ship of anything thy implement will probably not be very high
> They've been around longer than a year. I contacted them a little over
> two years ago to see what was up and they got rather huffy when I
> suggested what Maven was trying to do. They had even less around at that
> point but look at what they have now: 20 documents describing what they
> want to do and they've been around for 2 years and is there anything
> that incorporates their ideas in a working piece of software? No.
I guess all I can add is that its too bad that the CJAN domain got taken
up by such a slow moving project... It would be an ideally suited name
for the network of repositories established via the efforts of the
repository project. :-(
> So really, who cares about CJAN. The spec that goes defacto is the one
> manifest in the mechanism used by the most people.
However, by following a similar line of reasoning you could take for an
analogy that IE is the predominate browser on the market, so what ever
it defines as a DOM model or CSS implementation would be the standard,
but yet, we all know this isn't true. The w3c standards in these areas
(standards Microsoft is supposedly a member of the consortia defining)
are far from being met by IE.
> Unless of course SUN
> steps in at some point and tries to propose a JSR which wouldn't
> surprise me at all.
Well, I would suspect (or at least hope) that Apache would be a driving
force behind such an endeavor.
Mark R. Diggory
Software Developer - VDC Project
Harvard MIT Data Center