Sam Ruby wrote:
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
How do you fit in / are going to fit in with
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/atf/ ?
Zimbra is mentioned there.
If you look closely, that proposal closely matches the diffs between the
first draft and second draft of the AJAX Toolkit Proposal
Sam Ruby wrote:
To be honest, I would rather those points be placed on an general
incubator page as they apply to every proposal.
Jean just took care of that, using your wording. :-)
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
To be honest, I would rather those points be placed on an general
incubator page as they apply to every proposal.
Jean just took care of that, using your wording. :-)
actually, thanks to Gavin's patch posted to INCUBATOR-13 (Thanks, Gavin!)
-jean
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
To be honest, I would rather those points be placed on an general
incubator page as they apply to every proposal.
Jean just took care of that, using your wording. :-)
I take no credit for that wording. I simply took *your* wording, and
de-AJAXed
.
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KabukiProposal
- Original Message -
From: Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:03:59 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] AJAX Toolkit Proposal - Updated
Andrew Clark wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
And fwiw, I
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
How do you fit in / are going to fit in with
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/atf/ ?
Zimbra is mentioned there.
If you look closely, that proposal closely matches the diffs between the
first draft and second draft of the AJAX Toolkit Proposal that was
presented
When I originally kicked off this vote, I specified today, midnight, as
the 72-hour-and-then-some deadline. Since then the proposal got a
substantial revision (in particular, a new name) on Tuesday afternoon,
so extending this a few hours to 4PM PST seems in order.
I believe that the current
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
When I originally kicked off this vote, I specified today, midnight, as
the 72-hour-and-then-some deadline. Since then the proposal got a
substantial revision (in particular, a new name) on Tuesday afternoon,
so extending this a few
Could you please just restart the vote?
AND, given the chatter and discussion, could you post the final proposal
to the mail list again for a vote? I'm not trying to slow this down,
but after all the muss and fuss, 3 more days won't kill it, and it will
be clearer (at least to me...) to have
On 17.01.2006, at 03:55, David Crossley wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
+1 - I don't know how to add this to the incubator-site myself (is
anakia now ready to use?) but I'd really like to see this somewhere
on incubator.a.o, e.g. http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html...
Not yet ready. Lack of
On Jan 17, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Andrew Clark wrote:
[1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KabukiProposal
To be clear: +1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew,
can you just shortly reply to the technical questions Martin Cooper
has raised on this list? I do think he has a valid point there, and
I'd like to hear what you have to say to that.
Plus, please add me in as a committer. If this is to be incubated, I'd
rather than not be part of it to
Martin Marinschek wrote:
can you just shortly reply to the technical questions
Martin Cooper has raised on this list? I do think he
has a valid point there, and I'd like to hear what you
have to say to that.
I went back to the archives and re-read all of Martin's
posts on this topic but
I don't recall anymore what he said specifically - did he talk about
namespacing?
do you do that?
regards,
Martin
On 1/18/06, Andrew Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Marinschek wrote:
can you just shortly reply to the technical questions
Martin Cooper has raised on this list? I do
Martin Marinschek wrote:
I don't recall anymore what he said specifically - did
he talk about namespacing? do you do that?
I was unable to find anything specific to comment on.
Most of Martin Cooper's comments in his posts were
about the technology being too immature and that he
felt (after
For me, the first approach suffices.
regards,
Martin
On 1/18/06, Andrew Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Marinschek wrote:
I don't recall anymore what he said specifically - did
he talk about namespacing? do you do that?
I was unable to find anything specific to comment on.
Most of
Andrew Clark wrote:
Martin Marinschek wrote:
can you just shortly reply to the technical questions
Martin Cooper has raised on this list? I do think he
has a valid point there, and I'd like to hear what you
have to say to that.
I went back to the archives and re-read all of Martin's
Just a couple comments on Zimbra's motivations :-)
Zimbra has absolutely no commercial interest or monetization goals around its
Ajax toolkit. We are a collaboration software company and not a software tools
company. We do have a very strong interest in ensuring the success of Ajax in a
Upayavira wrote:
Another concern IIRC was download size. I remember
(possibly incorrectly) that the toolkit has quite a
large download before it will work, while other
toolkits download piecemeal as required.
That's certainly one approach. And there are good reasons
for doing it all
+1 on the proposal. I am assuming that the project
will not have a generic technology name (Roy's point)
but I'm not withholding my vote for that.
On Jan 16, 2006, at 9:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
On 16.01.2006, at 02:42, Sam Ruby wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time
Sam Ruby wrote:
And fwiw, I like 'Jambaloo' as a name but probably that's just me ;-)
Andy, any preference?
I don't have any particular preference in regards to
the name. If people have a problem with AjaxTk being
too broad, then any other name will do. I have a
natural preference towards
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I see .java files - that has nothing to do with AJAX,
so I'm sort of confused. I'd be expecting to see, well,
only JavaScript.
[...]
If it has .java files, it isn't a 'client library'. So,
I want to make sure we clarify where the boundaries are,
so stupid
Hi folks,
First off, I would like to thank everyone for taking interest in the ajax
toolkit incubator proposal and for the time folks are taking in providing
feedback. From reading the various postings, there seems to be three areas of
concern:
1) Project name. The issue here seems to be
--On January 17, 2006 11:36:23 AM -0800 Andrew Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
While this submission starts with the primary widget
toolkit needed to start building AJAX applications, there
is a need for server-side code to complete the model. And
Java is a natural solution for this part and it
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Andrew Clark wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I see .java files - that has nothing to do with AJAX,
so I'm sort of confused. I'd be expecting to see, well,
only JavaScript.
[...]
If it has .java files, it isn't a 'client library'. So,
I want to make sure we clarify
Andrew Clark wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
And fwiw, I like 'Jambaloo' as a name but probably that's just me ;-)
Andy, any preference?
I don't have any particular preference in regards to
the name. If people have a problem with AjaxTk being
too broad, then any other name will do. I have a
natural
how about AJAX?
:)
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
I'll chime in with some name ideas just for consideration ;)
And fwiw, I like 'Jambaloo' as a name but probably that's just me ;-)
Mmm, yeah, maybe that's just you ;)
natural preference towards Japanese names, though,
so I'll suggest Kabuki.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
natural preference towards Japanese names, though,
so I'll suggest Kabuki. :)
Kabuki is not bad, though somewhat old-fashioned, no?
I guess I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy. :) Actually,
my favorite traditional Japanese art is bunraku even
though I (sadly) have not seen it
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:03:59 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] AJAX Toolkit Proposal - Updated
Andrew Clark wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
And fwiw, I like 'Jambaloo' as a name but probably that's just me ;-)
Andy, any preference?
I don't have any particular preference in regards to
the name
-1.
* There is no proposal in this email nor a URL reference to one. It
looks like an attachment was stripped or something. Attachments suck.
* it should have a different name from AJAX toolkit (and someone
should update whatever docs we have to note that projects should have
distinctive
Sam,
As others have suggested, please attach the proposal. Is this a vote on the
proposal contained in
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted by Ross Dargahi on January 11, 2006?
I believe that many of the complaints people have raised previously, or
currently, can be addressed by renaming
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
we get an umbrella every time we approve a project named
after a technology *space* instead of a product.
Just to nitpick, I feel that the Directory project has done a fine job of
avoiding umbrella-ship, despite serving up a number of directory service
related protocols
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Sam,
As others have suggested, please attach the proposal. Is this a vote
on the proposal contained in
Message-ID:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
posted by Ross Dargahi on January 11, 2006?
Yes, and I've copy and pasted it below.
I'd put it in the wiki, but that requires a name.
Sam,
- we need to appropriately name the project.
Sure, let's name it after a region in the south pacific
Truk? JAAT? [Just Another AJAX Toolkit] I don't care.
We seem to agree on the rest, but the proposal should make it clear, since
those are points that appear to concern (some)
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We seem to agree on the rest, but the proposal should make it clear,
since those are points that appear to concern (some) others.
To be honest, I would rather those points be placed on an general
incubator page as they apply to every proposal.
* No codebase within
On 16.01.2006, at 02:42, Sam Ruby wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for a
VOTE to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this
proposal for incubation.
As Roy and Leo (and others?) already noted, the proposal as sent is
lacking some vital
On 17.01.2006, at 00:33, Sam Ruby wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We seem to agree on the rest, but the proposal should make it clear,
since those are points that appear to concern (some) others.
To be honest, I would rather those points be placed on an general
incubator page as they apply
Erik Abele wrote:
On 16.01.2006, at 02:42, Sam Ruby wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for a
VOTE to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this
proposal for incubation.
As Roy and Leo (and others?) already noted, the proposal as sent is
lacking
On 17.01.2006, at 03:12, Sam Ruby wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
On 16.01.2006, at 02:42, Sam Ruby wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for
a VOTE to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this
proposal for incubation.
As Roy and Leo (and others?)
Erik Abele wrote:
+1 - I don't know how to add this to the incubator-site myself (is
anakia now ready to use?) but I'd really like to see this somewhere
on incubator.a.o, e.g. http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html...
Not yet ready. Lack of staff:
On 17.01.2006, at 03:55, David Crossley wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
+1 - I don't know how to add this to the incubator-site myself (is
anakia now ready to use?) but I'd really like to see this somewhere
on incubator.a.o, e.g. http://incubator.apache.org/faq.html...
Not yet ready. Lack of
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 08:42:17PM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for a VOTE
to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this proposal for
incubation.
Looking at the wiki page and a cursory glance at the source, my question is
one
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for a VOTE
to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this proposal for
incubation.
Recap:
* This has been scaled back - no umbrella or Eclipse plugins here.
If accepted, it will be entirely up to the ASF to determine how
+1 from me.
-- dims
PS: why was eclipse plugins removed? (/me lazy to browse all the emails again!)
On 1/15/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The discussion has died down, and the time has come to call for a VOTE
to see if the incubator wants to sponsor and accept this proposal for
44 matches
Mail list logo
