Re: Differences
Approach. Use struts if you're using JSP Use Tapestry if you want to attach logic with div tags As for turbineCheshire cat grin...a lot of people use it with velocity. Use Cocoon is you live breathe and die XML and don't mind the extreme joy that comes from writing web pages in XSLT with its user friendly regular expression-like syntax Yes struts can use things that aren't JSP but is not OPTIMAL for that. Tapestry is well pretty different (I make no bones that I like it best for webapps) Turbine ...Cheshire cat grin Cocoon can theoretically be a toaster if you configure it right, but has the largest learning curve of the 4. I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a good place to ask (its more of an administrative list). You'd be better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably send you links to their website). Generally these messages devolve into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in fact) so asking them all in a room together what's the difference is well...often not pretty. -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. From: Thiago Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:53:52 -0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Differences Hi ppl, What's the main difference between Struts, Tapestry and Turbine? Thanks in advance! Thiago Souza - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
Anything happening in this regard? -Harish Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ). I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism). I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a [VOTE] and change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is volunteering to monitor. IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others think without asking. Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other think ). Like: 1. Extend the PMC: - to include all committers ( even if the don't want ) - to include all the comitters who want - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules 2. Future extension of the PMC: - hand-picking by current people - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want. 3. Jakarta and TLPs - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without encouragements - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that fit togheter - whatever that means) - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him. 4. Is jakarta a good thing ? - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other jakarta people - no, it's just a mess - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does ! I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary vote to indicate what a majority thinks. And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more aggressive way. Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Anything happening in this regard? -Harish Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ). I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism). I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a [VOTE] and change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is volunteering to monitor. IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others think without asking. Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other think ). Like: 1. Extend the PMC: - to include all committers ( even if the don't want ) - to include all the comitters who want - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules 2. Future extension of the PMC: - hand-picking by current people - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want. 3. Jakarta and TLPs - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without encouragements - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that fit togheter - whatever that means) - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him. 4. Is jakarta a good thing ? - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other jakarta people - no, it's just a mess - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does ! I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary vote to indicate what a majority thinks. And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
Thanks, will results be posted here? -Harish Henri Yandell wrote: A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more aggressive way. Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Anything happening in this regard? -Harish Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ). I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism). I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a [VOTE] and change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is volunteering to monitor. IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others think without asking. Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other think ). Like: 1. Extend the PMC: - to include all committers ( even if the don't want ) - to include all the comitters who want - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules 2. Future extension of the PMC: - hand-picking by current people - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want. 3. Jakarta and TLPs - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without encouragements - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that fit togheter - whatever that means) - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him. 4. Is jakarta a good thing ? - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other jakarta people - no, it's just a mess - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does ! I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary vote to indicate what a majority thinks. And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
Currently that doesn't happen. Would be nice if it could, but it just doesn't fit. When someone wins a vote, they're invited to join. If they accept, which they signify by joining the PMC list [the Jakarta Chair moderates it], then the Jakarta Chair passes their name onto the board and they're meant to get inked into the committers/board/committee-info.txt file when it's official. From the previous batch of 20 or so, there are still 3 people or so who I didn't hear back from after two email attempts, and the other 17 [made up numbers] are still not in the committee-info file. I'm unsure when an announcement to this list would/should happen under the process above. The only part that is enforced is the board part, so until someone appears in committee-info, they're not technically on the PMC. There's a /committers/pmc/jakarta/pmc-pending.txt file which shows who is currently waiting addition to the committee-info. Ideas? Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Thanks, will results be posted here? -Harish Henri Yandell wrote: A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more aggressive way. Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Anything happening in this regard? -Harish Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ). I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism). I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a [VOTE] and change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is volunteering to monitor. IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others think without asking. Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other think ). Like: 1. Extend the PMC: - to include all committers ( even if the don't want ) - to include all the comitters who want - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules 2. Future extension of the PMC: - hand-picking by current people - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want. 3. Jakarta and TLPs - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without encouragements - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that fit togheter - whatever that means) - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him. 4. Is jakarta a good thing ? - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other jakarta people - no, it's just a mess - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does ! I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary vote to indicate what a majority thinks. And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all _committers_ should vote, but only PMC member votes are binding !!! That's why people should volunteer for PMC, however this is about jakarta and comitters are what jakarata means. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
Thanks for the update. I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list with just a tally, like how JCP does it (http://jcp.org/en/whatsnew/elections). Also this process of electing members in batches of 20 or so is time consuming and cumbersome, I think, unless there is a valid reason that this list is not aware of. -Harish Henri Yandell wrote: Currently that doesn't happen. Would be nice if it could, but it just doesn't fit. When someone wins a vote, they're invited to join. If they accept, which they signify by joining the PMC list [the Jakarta Chair moderates it], then the Jakarta Chair passes their name onto the board and they're meant to get inked into the committers/board/committee-info.txt file when it's official. From the previous batch of 20 or so, there are still 3 people or so who I didn't hear back from after two email attempts, and the other 17 [made up numbers] are still not in the committee-info file. I'm unsure when an announcement to this list would/should happen under the process above. The only part that is enforced is the board part, so until someone appears in committee-info, they're not technically on the PMC. There's a /committers/pmc/jakarta/pmc-pending.txt file which shows who is currently waiting addition to the committee-info. Ideas? Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Thanks, will results be posted here? -Harish Henri Yandell wrote: A vote is on-going at the moment [ends Sunday] for 20 or so people, but I've not heard of any movement on the plans to increase in a more aggressive way. Hen On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote: Anything happening in this regard? -Harish Costin Manolache wrote: Ted Husted wrote: Right now, the only plan seems to be to nominate committers one-by-one on the PMC list. I'm just saying that we shouldn't play favorites. I believe all Jakarta committers have already earned membership in the PMC; we should tender the offer to every Jakarta committer and let each decision-maker decide for himself or herself. If the consensus is that the bootstrap PMC will continue to hand-pick which of our duly-elected committers are promoted to the PMC, and which are not, then so be it. But, personally, I think that process is nothing but busy work. The community has already decided. Let's ratify the community's decisions and let Jakarta be whatever Jakarta wants to be. +1 It seems this is the consensus, to add most committers - one by one or ten by ten. Let's go with that for now, almost everyone is agreeing with the goal of having everyone who cares included ( I didn't see a vote yet, but it seems pretty clear we agree on this ). I don't like the process of hand-picking either - unfortunatly that's the norm in ASF ( membership and all other PMCs use the same mechanism). I hope after we get past the first stage we can have a [VOTE] and change this to people _volunteering_ for PMC - by sending a mail with subscribe subject and the list of sub-projects the person is volunteering to monitor. IMO the only way out of this discussion is to divide the problem into very small pieces and have real VOTEs and counting of each of them. Proposals with more than 1 atom have no chance, and most of the problems occur because everyone seems to think he knows what the others think without asking. Please people, write down what you want, separate it in very elementary pieces, then post a VOTE and see what the majority things ( it may be consensus or a simple majority - but at least you'll know what other think ). Like: 1. Extend the PMC: - to include all committers ( even if the don't want ) - to include all the comitters who want - to include all who want and prove they understand the rules 2. Future extension of the PMC: - hand-picking by current people - people volunteering - because we trust them already to write the code and do the work, and it's fair to let them join whenver they want. 3. Jakarta and TLPs - 'encourage' every subproject to TLP - let each subproject decide if they want to leave jakarta- without encouragements - 'encourage' only subprojects that have problems - do a selection based on some characteristic ( like projects that fit togheter - whatever that means) - try to keep jakarta togheter and increase the community ( as jakarta-commons did ). If someone really wants to go - of course let him. 4. Is jakarta a good thing ? - yes, not perfect but we are improving and working better with other jakarta people - no, it's just a mess - yes, other projects should do what jakarta does ! I hate when people keep talking about consensus and argue as if they knew what the consensus was, but we don't have even the most elementary vote to indicate what a majority thinks. And BTW - please make sure that the votes explicitely state that all _committers_ should vote, but only
RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list If you are nominated and not elected people would know. Otherwise, there is privacy. I do agree that when the results are known they could and should be published. Also this process of electing members in batches of 20 or so is time consuming The problem is that there are 100s of Commiters, and only a relative handful of PMC members. So the PMC members nominated as many people as they knew from working with. There are a lot on that list. Once they are on, I hope that they will be able to nominate the bulk of the remaining active members. Time consuming, yes. Something of an artifact from things getting as out of hand as they did, so hopefully not something that will need to be repeated. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Differences
Thanks! - Original Message - From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Differences Approach. Use struts if you're using JSP Use Tapestry if you want to attach logic with div tags As for turbineCheshire cat grin...a lot of people use it with velocity. Use Cocoon is you live breathe and die XML and don't mind the extreme joy that comes from writing web pages in XSLT with its user friendly regular expression-like syntax Yes struts can use things that aren't JSP but is not OPTIMAL for that. Tapestry is well pretty different (I make no bones that I like it best for webapps) Turbine ...Cheshire cat grin Cocoon can theoretically be a toaster if you configure it right, but has the largest learning curve of the 4. I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a good place to ask (its more of an administrative list). You'd be better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably send you links to their website). Generally these messages devolve into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in fact) so asking them all in a room together what's the difference is well...often not pretty. -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its general membership. In fact they probably most definitively disagree with everything espoused in the above email. From: Thiago Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 04:53:52 -0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Differences Hi ppl, What's the main difference between Struts, Tapestry and Turbine? Thanks in advance! Thiago Souza - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list If you are nominated and not elected people would know. Otherwise, there is privacy. I do agree that when the results are known they could and should be published. Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but choose not to accept? Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a [RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the results]. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
Personally, I would send in the list to the board, get it ACK'd, and then celebrate the results with a public congratulatory notice. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extending the PMC ( was: Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status)
On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:30 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Noel J. Bergman wrote: I don't understand why anything but the actual vote needs to be in private. There should probably be a public nomination list with reasons for hand picking (if hand picked) and a public results list If you are nominated and not elected people would know. Otherwise, there is privacy. I do agree that when the results are known they could and should be published. Is there any reason for privacy if you are nominated, elected, but choose not to accept? I don't think so. We want *everyone* to accept. Or should I go ahead and publish the list of people who are being recommended to the board as PMC members [probably a day or so after a [RESULT] on the pmc list just in case there are arguments over the results]. Yes - once we get the list complete (based on acceptance)... Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Differences
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:00:31 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a good place to ask (its more of an administrative list). You'd be better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably send you links to their website). Generally these messages devolve into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in fact) so asking them all in a room together what's the difference is well...often not pretty. Actually, this used to be the place where people could ask questions like this, and chat about everything under the Java sun. A while back, we co-opted the General list for use as the PMC public list. And subscribes to General have been falling every since. Less than a third of what they once were. Perhaps once most of the Committers are on the PMC list, we can move the administrative nonsense there again, and let the General list be the General list again :) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Differences
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:00:31 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Yes struts can use things that aren't JSP but is not OPTIMAL for that. Thanks to the Velocity Tools, http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/tools/index.html many people, including myself, find Struts and Velocity to be an optimal combination. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Differences
On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Ted Husted wrote: On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:00:31 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: I understand why you came here to ask this, but its not really a good place to ask (its more of an administrative list). You'd be better going and asking each of the projects (who will probably send you links to their website). Generally these messages devolve into flamebait because each project feels very passionate about their approach (enough to devote real time to developing it in fact) so asking them all in a room together what's the difference is well...often not pretty. Actually, this used to be the place where people could ask questions like this, and chat about everything under the Java sun. A while back, we co-opted the General list for use as the PMC public list. And subscribes to General have been falling every since. Less than a third of what they once were. Perhaps once most of the Committers are on the PMC list, we can move the administrative nonsense there again, and let the General list be the General list again :) +1 -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Differences
Perhaps once most of the Committers are on the PMC list, we can move the administrative nonsense there again, and let the General list be the General list again :) As a side note, Roy just insisted that a vote to release a product from the Incubator be moved from the PMC list to the general@ list. I am assuming to perform that function in public. Perhaps you'd like a public admin@ list? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
