On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 06:03:37AM -0400, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Just as there are many implementations of JSP, C, C++, Java and
> every other language that exists, so are there now of WebMacro.
Except there's no guarantee they'll really be compatible, and it
creates confusion. It splits the available resources, and it makes
people think they made a mistake using free software.
> In terms of WebMacro users, I think Velocity is a benefit
> as well. We have full intentions of trying to make Velocity
> a 100% drop in replacement for WebMacro.
Let's not make this an "eventual" thing, let's make it happen
this week. Let's put the two projects together and create one
fully functional unified code tree with everything in it.
You'll then have my help improving it over time. My need is that
what we have by the end of this week support my clients, like
AltaVista, who depend on all kinds of interfaces that WM has
which you haven't yet adopted and may not for a long time.
By the way, it's no longer a secret that AltaVista is evaluating
WebMacro. They haven't made an official decision to use Java/WebMacro
for the AltaVista site, but it is pretty much the leading contender
at this point. Wouldn't you like to be a part of that? If we make
it one unified code base you will be.
Not only that, but AV has a lot of resources to put back in. This
also pretty much gives WM better name recognition than Velocity,
since being used on AV will a huge PR win--if we can pull it off.
> The second that you fully APL your code, or
> the second someone at the ASF says it's ok
> I can then look at your code, we can work together
> and make something awesome!
I'll remove the advertising clause and use the nwe ASF license if
we can come to some basic understanding about the future. That
includes deciding that we do want to continue to support people
like AltaVista.
Instead of working to rewrite WM, I would like to put the WM code
into your tree and work on adding your improvements to it. The
difference is subtle but important: We will be supporting and
improving an *existing* user base, rather than trying to copy
soemthing.
> You can't convince me that the SPL, or a slightly
> modified APL will not cause problems down the road.
WebMacro is under the older Apache license with the advertising
clause, but it *is* the Apache license. I will move to the
newer apache license if we can agree on the future.
> By my last measurement Velocity was slightly faster
> then your last snapshot. But when I am finished
> implementing the "Injectors" in Velocity then
> we will let the profiler/JMeter decide.
There's only one sane measure and that's requests per second.
And it's only fair to compare them when they're doing the
same things, meaning that you have the same flexibility
and the same utility.
> I am a bit of a performance junkie, but I fully realize the
> quality of the code is just as important and
> that's why I'm lucky that there are other great
> developer on the team!
Put it this way: I've already proven here at AltaVista that
WebMacro is capable of serving 100 million pages per day.
There is no performance issue here. There used to be, but
it's been solved. At 800 requests per second off a single
box there just isn't much more performance ou need.
> That's about all I have to say on the subject.
> You are welcome here anytime!
I can't come and join you unless I can bring my users and know that
I haven't let them down: they must *immediately* be fully supported,
with a mature project and a stable code base.
We have to start from WM and add on Velocity stuff, like your parser.
Otherwise I am setting back all my users, and my customers, and people
like AltaVista, way back. JSP will snap up most of those people while
we sit around trying to get back to where WM already is.
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
