Re: Name for commons-like area for web
On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 19:37 +0200, Torsten Curdt wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but if Web were a subproject under Jakarta Commons, could Web itself have subprojects? AFAIK there is no project that has such subproject. ...but that does not mean it's completely impossible. Probably needs to be discussed. please, please no sub-sub-projects! apache has been trying to unwind the deep hierarchical structure (that jakarta used to have) for several years now in favour of a flatter model. the reason is simple: hierarchical structures tend to fragment and create problems with oversight. this issue of oversight is of critical importance for the board (and anyone else who cares about the future of the foundation). projects and sub-projects are constructs for legal oversight and management. one of the issues for a flatter jakarta is guiding uses through a myriad of components managed by a single community of developers. all components are equal but the management structure and the relationship structure expressed by the website navigation do not necessarily need to coincide. - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
Probably needs to be discussed. please, please no sub-sub-projects! ...just a theoretical option. But I guess you are right ;) cheers -- Torsten signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
Web Components. +1 It is what it says it is. Even to those who's first language may not be English. d. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limit ed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
On Jun 27, 2005, at 3:55 AM, Danny Angus wrote: Web Components. +1 It is what it says it is. Even to those who's first language may not be English. I apologize that I've not followed this thread carefully. Web Components: -1 JSF and Tapestry both have components that are vastly different beasts than what will be in this commons area. It is too likely that anything called components would be confused by JSF or Tapestry folks. What's wrong with Webapp Commons? Erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
What's wrong with Webapp Commons? Commons = Jakarta Commons ...for a whole bunch of people. As long as it is not under the Jakarta Commons umbrella like Jakarta Commons Web I would be clearly against using the word commons. Actually if it is meant to be java only it could even fit well into the jakarta commons project. ...IMO cheers -- Torsten signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: Name for commons-like area for web
Pardon my ignorance, but if Web were a subproject under Jakarta Commons, could Web itself have subprojects? -Shawn From: Torsten Curdt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 6/27/2005 6:12 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: Name for commons-like area for web What's wrong with Webapp Commons? Commons = Jakarta Commons ...for a whole bunch of people. As long as it is not under the Jakarta Commons umbrella like Jakarta Commons Web I would be clearly against using the word commons. Actually if it is meant to be java only it could even fit well into the jakarta commons project. ...IMO cheers -- Torsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Name for commons-like area for web
I'm not a huge fan of any of the names on the list, but I think names like Webementels is a very .com-late-90's kind of name. I've been doing web development for a while now, and my first reaction to products with names like that is to shy away from them, to not take them very seriously. I think a solid, descriptive name is the way to go. (The same goes for Weblets in the list. It just sounds a bitamateurish.) I'm with the others who think we should avoid Commons unless we are actually a part of commons. Weblibs sounds too much like Taglibs. It might be confusing for new people when they first see the name. I like Web Components the best so far. -Shawn From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/25/2005 11:04 PM To: Jakarta General List Cc: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: Name for commons-like area for web I found this comment interesting: What about something less definite and more 'code word'? What about not having the word 'web'? 'Arctic' or 'Telsa' or something completely meaningless but catchier than 'Web .*$ I think if a proper name is choosen along these lines, the result is something better than the relatively pedestrian names currently being bandied about (not that any of them are especially bad, just a little, bland). How about something like Webementals, fusing Web and Elementals (signifying pieces that combine to form a larger whole)? I think a code word-type name is more interesting and meorable (once a person knows what its all about), but it should still have some connection to what the project is all about. The argument against of course is that you won't know at a glance what its all about. I think something clever enough can overcome this and still be a bit more exciting. Just my opinion (who else' would it be?!?) -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Sat, June 25, 2005 2:22 pm, Stephen Colebourne said: There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. We do need to decide this though. Only then can mailing list discussion move off jakarta general and coding get started. Stephen - 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]
Name for commons-like area for web
There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. We do need to decide this though. Only then can mailing list discussion move off jakarta general and coding get started. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. As long as it is not under the umbrella of the Jakarta Commons project I would avaoid the term Commons. I think I like WebLibs the best. cheers -- Torsten signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
I like Components the best (Jakarta Web Components). Apparently so does Sun (e.g. SCWCD). To me, Parts sounds like what I need when my car breaks down. And brick reminds me of a funny insult that was going around the net for a while: http://forums.modemhelp.net/viewtopic.php?t=4161 -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist Consulting / Mentoring / Freelance EdgeTech, Inc. http://www.edgetechservices.net/ 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Skype: jmitchtx - Original Message - From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List general@jakarta.apache.org Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:22 PM Subject: Name for commons-like area for web There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. We do need to decide this though. Only then can mailing list discussion move off jakarta general and coding get started. Stephen - 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: Name for commons-like area for web
Hi! Web Commons Web Components For me it depends how fine grained those components are. Say, if there is a project which cummulates all filters for a servlet container I am for web commons as it might result in project sizes we have in commons. If we manage (what I prefer) to have much much smaller parts say a filter component to handle access control based on the ip address with hosts allow/deny rules or another simple component to have commons-validator available as tags for jsf (yes I know there is shale) I am for web components. --- Mario - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
On 6/25/05, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Web Commons Web Components For me it depends how fine grained those components are. Say, if there is a project which cummulates all filters for a servlet container I am for web commons as it might result in project sizes we have in commons. If we manage (what I prefer) to have much much smaller parts say a filter component to handle access control based on the ip address with hosts allow/deny rules or another simple component to have commons-validator available as tags for jsf (yes I know there is shale) I am for web components. I am +1 for web components too ... but just wanted to note that the integration between JSF and Commons Validator in Shale is usable even if you don't buy in to the rest of the Shale architecture -- it doens't have any dependencies on the core Shale framework. That kind of independence is one of my goals for the Tiles integration in Shale as well. Except for the configuration interface (which is hooked in to the configuration of Shale overall, but is easily separable), the same is also true for the Dialogs part of Shale ... it has no runtime dependencies on the Shale framework classes, only on the portable JSF APIs. Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
Stephen Colebourne wrote: There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. I like WebLibs the best. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Name for commons-like area for web
-Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 June 2005 02:16 To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: Name for commons-like area for web Stephen Colebourne wrote: There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. I like WebLibs the best. Phil ... Nah. That's an anagram of 'Wibbles', and it might upset the company that makes those fashionable toys that are all about friendship, if they ever worked it out ... Rgds Deano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
On 6/25/05, Dean Pickersgill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] snip/ I like WebLibs the best. Phil ... Nah. That's an anagram of 'Wibbles', and it might upset the company that makes those fashionable toys that are all about friendship, if they ever worked it out ... I can see how this thread might last a while ;-) Personally, I'm (also) +1 (non-binding) for web components. -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Name for commons-like area for web
I found this comment interesting: What about something less definite and more 'code word'? What about not having the word 'web'? 'Arctic' or 'Telsa' or something completely meaningless but catchier than 'Web .*$ I think if a proper name is choosen along these lines, the result is something better than the relatively pedestrian names currently being bandied about (not that any of them are especially bad, just a little, bland). How about something like Webementals, fusing Web and Elementals (signifying pieces that combine to form a larger whole)? I think a code word-type name is more interesting and meorable (once a person knows what its all about), but it should still have some connection to what the project is all about. The argument against of course is that you won't know at a glance what its all about. I think something clever enough can overcome this and still be a bit more exciting. Just my opinion (who else' would it be?!?) -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Sat, June 25, 2005 2:22 pm, Stephen Colebourne said: There doesn't seem to be a thread for this The current suggestions are: Commons Web Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J) Web App Commons Web App Components Web App Modules Web Bricks Web Commons Web Components Web Libs Web Parts Web Tools Weblets Of these, WebParts has issues with Microsoft, so I would suggest we avoid it. Weblets was also used by IBM back in 2000, so could have issues. The most obvious would be CommonsWeb or WebCommons, as the general user community could link the concept to commons easily enough. However, there is a danger that it could be confusing precisely because of that. Thus, my current top three are: - WebLibs - WebCommons - WebBricks but I can still be persuaded. We do need to decide this though. Only then can mailing list discussion move off jakarta general and coding get started. Stephen - 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: Name for commons-like area for web
Hi Craig! but just wanted to note that the integration between JSF and Commons Validator in Shale is usable even if you don't buy in to the rest of the Shale architecture Yes, I know - I already use it that way (or better, I started to use it ;-). However, even if shale-core is small, if we go the Web Components direction I think even the shale-core (if it were integrated into web components) needs to be broken into more pieces. And yes, I would prefer it. I think this is an important point. Even a project like (the great) Shale might be too big to be a web component. This stuff can be reflected on the homepage by multiple projects where we have a set of committers like we have now, but this project has to release web components. Even if this project always releases all its web components at once (and thus all their jar files do have the same version number) it is possible for the user to pick its web component. The project is free to also provide a web component bundle. This should avoid somethink like we see often with commons-collections which has been grown in a way where other projects decide to copy the one Collection class needet out of it and drop the rest. On every new release this has to be done again. --- Mario - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
