Re: jcs
Sounds like the basic problem is lack of community. Getting community involves publicity and time. Publicity involves web presence and a release. Unless the rest of the turbine community are highly interested in JCS, I'd suggest that joining Commons is the best way for you to gain community. It's designed for things like JCS, but has no rules to stop JCS being promoted out of Commons when the time comes. Just by joining Commons you gain a pseudo-community for your project as you'll be sharing a mailing list and others have commit access and can jump in and help for a small task etc [like a release/website]. With an active committer and publicity, contributors quite quickly turn up. Indeed our problem is more one of having contributors to components but no active committer. Other alternatives would be to put JCS into incubation [which seems heavy-handed], to talk with Turbineers about turning Turbine more into a Commons-like environment, or to cast you out into Apache Commons. None of these seem of benefit to JCS. Hen On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote: For the short term, I'm not sure what is best for JCS or Jakarta. Stepping back and looking at JCS in relation to other Jakarta projects might be helpful. The commons is described as a Repository for small scale, reusable, code components that are useful in multiple Jakarta subprojects. A small-scale component does not sound like a good description of JCS. Instead, JCS looks more like a standalone tool such as Log4J, although JCS is somewhat bigger. I'm not sure this means it should be its own project at this point or not. JCS is being used on its own outside of Jakarta and within, making it look more like a candidate for standalone status. Also, there are commercial standalone caching applications on the market. I'm sure JCS would be much more widely used if we got out a release. Right now, the major impediment is that users have to build it themselves. If we had a release, more sample applications and further documentation, it would become more widely adopted. It is somewhat hidden right now: it's not listed on the main product page on the Jakarta site. One reason one might give for not making JCS a top level project is that it is understaffed right now, though this may change if it was moved up. Aaron Smuts - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jcs
I agree to Henri JCS could need more publicity! I have implemented a transactional cache for the Jakarta Slide project as the only Apache caching thing I have found at that time was http://db.apache.org/ojb/objectcache.html which simply was not powerful enough. Even tought ojb caching took some searching to actually find it as well, I did not find JCS as on the turbine page there is just the name JCS. I did not imagine it was JCS caching in the first place. Now information http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/jcs/index.html tells me too little. Can someone explain: does it support any type of transactions or could it easily be augmented to? Hope this is not too much OT and thanks in advance, Oliver Henri Yandell wrote: Sounds like the basic problem is lack of community. Getting community involves publicity and time. Publicity involves web presence and a release. Unless the rest of the turbine community are highly interested in JCS, I'd suggest that joining Commons is the best way for you to gain community. It's designed for things like JCS, but has no rules to stop JCS being promoted out of Commons when the time comes. Just by joining Commons you gain a pseudo-community for your project as you'll be sharing a mailing list and others have commit access and can jump in and help for a small task etc [like a release/website]. With an active committer and publicity, contributors quite quickly turn up. Indeed our problem is more one of having contributors to components but no active committer. Other alternatives would be to put JCS into incubation [which seems heavy-handed], to talk with Turbineers about turning Turbine more into a Commons-like environment, or to cast you out into Apache Commons. None of these seem of benefit to JCS. Hen On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote: For the short term, I'm not sure what is best for JCS or Jakarta. Stepping back and looking at JCS in relation to other Jakarta projects might be helpful. The commons is described as a Repository for small scale, reusable, code components that are useful in multiple Jakarta subprojects. A small-scale component does not sound like a good description of JCS. Instead, JCS looks more like a standalone tool such as Log4J, although JCS is somewhat bigger. I'm not sure this means it should be its own project at this point or not. JCS is being used on its own outside of Jakarta and within, making it look more like a candidate for standalone status. Also, there are commercial standalone caching applications on the market. I'm sure JCS would be much more widely used if we got out a release. Right now, the major impediment is that users have to build it themselves. If we had a release, more sample applications and further documentation, it would become more widely adopted. It is somewhat hidden right now: it's not listed on the main product page on the Jakarta site. One reason one might give for not making JCS a top level project is that it is understaffed right now, though this may change if it was moved up. Aaron Smuts - 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: jcs
Oliver Zeigermann wrote: Now information http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/jcs/index.html tells me too little. Can someone explain: does it support any type of transactions or could it easily be augmented to? Hope this is not too much OT and thanks in advance, I think JCS is getting extra attention from Hibernate, with most docs on this page: http://www.hibernate.org/61.html JCS is the primary (sole) caching system provided for 2.0. Unfortunately the Hibernate 2.1 release that is due out soon has a pluggable caching architecture and is moving away from JCS as the default, so this publicity opportunity may slip away soon. -- Serge Knystautas President Lokitech software . strategy . design http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jcs
On 1 Dec 2003, at 09:57, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: I agree to Henri JCS could need more publicity! luckily enough it's apache newsletter time! i know from personal experience that writing up something for the newsletter really does generate interest. JCS sounds like something that people would be interested in - if they knew. in terms of releases, one approach that has been found to work in the jakarta-commons (when faced with similar difficulties) is creating less-than-one releases (for example, a 0.1 release). - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: jcs
I'm sure JCS would be much more widely used if we got out a release. Right now, the major impediment is that users have to build it themselves. If we had a release, more sample applications and further For a long time I hoped a release could be avoided until after the JCache JSR was at least in public draft form and we could decide if we wanted to use their API. However at this point I can only assume that JSR is completely dead so it may not be a realistic concern. -- jt (who doesn't care where JCS 'lives') - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
