Niall Pemberton wrote:
IMO any contribution that isn't accepted is for one of three reasons 1)
People don't like/agree with it or 2) no-one had the time to look at it or
3) no-one was interested in it. I can only really speak for myself, and I
didn't have the time. I understand your frustration and for my part I'm
sorry - I can remember the days when...trying to get a committers attention.
I appreciate that, although I don't think you or anyone else has any
need to apologize :) Like I said, I'm long past the point of being
bitter/angry/annoyed/<insert pointless emotional state here>. They were
just the examples that came to mind.
I will say though, and I have said in the past, that accepting some of
the new ideas that come around every now and again, even if you don't
buy into them 100%, might help Struts grow quite a bit. I understand
you can't accept things you totally disagree with, and you can't accept
things you aren't willing to support yourself, but I do think there is
*some* degree of flexibility that perhaps isn't there now that could be.
I think that's another topic for another day though :)
Back OT... I think #1 and #3 should be clarified... it's not "people"
that don't like/agree or have interest or not... it's committers. They
are the ones that ultimately make the decisions (on Struts, just like
any other project) on what goes in. Unless you have something that
there is huge community support for already, but I dare say that rarely
happens. I'm not passing judgment in any form by the way, this is how
an open-source project works, but in the interest of accuracy, I believe
that is the correct way to state it.
<snip>
I agree that it's fine for Sun, Oracle et al to do what they are doing,
whether it's hype or whatever else. It's capitalism, it seems to work,
and it's fine. What bugs me is when they, or anyone, tries to convince
you it's something else. Hey, tell me your trying to make a buck and I
might be willing to buy! It's seems minor perhaps, but it's not: when
you know a business is trying to make money and yet tries to sell you on
some altruistic goal of "making your life better as a developer", well,
there's a certain degree of dishonesty there. It may not be an outright
lie, they may really believe they are making things better, but it's
certainly not the primary motivation. I suppose one could argue it's
just sales in generak, and I suppose it is, but then again, isn't sales
always to some degree dishonest? I'm not naive, I understand what the
motivation beneath it all is, so don't try and convince me otherwise.
</snip>
Whos trying to convince you of something that they don't thinks true? Do you
not think that when the JSF spec was developed they didn't think it was the
"best thing since sliced bread" or are you saying that they decided to come
up with something they believed was inferior on purpose with the whole
intention of conning us into buying there tools? I don't buy that
Oh no, I made the mistake of going down that road once, and I won't do
it again :) However I may have thought on this topic in the past, I can
only tell you what I think now: no one is purposely trying to create an
inferior product. Those that are creating this or that are doing so
believing they are creating something worth-wild (me included). I *DO*
believe they created something specifically geared towards tooling, but
that is entirely different. I don't agree with that goal, but I don't
see it as dishonest or conning anyone, or anything like that. It is
simply a design goal that I happen to disagree with.
> - I
believe the JSF expert group came up with what they thought was the best
solution AND hoped to use it to sell lots of tools as well. Whats wrong with
that?
That's exactly what I was going to say above. That dual purposes, I
believe, were what the goals were. And I agree, I see nothing wrong
with that... *IF* they will admit it.
I don't know if you have ever done any study on reading body language...
for a while it was a pet interest of mine. What it boils down to is
reading the minor incongruities between what a person says and what
their body says. More generally though, determining truthfulness is
detecting the minor incongruities. For instance, if all the expert
group ever says is we were trying to create something cool, we didn't
think about tool vendors, but the actions outside them seem to indicate
otherwise, there is a dishonesty.
Like body language, you can interpret things incorrectly sometimes, and
I do leave room for that possibility here. And, maybe people have been
speaking up all along saying "hey, these were our TWO goals". I'm not
saying no one ever did. I am not aware of it if anyone has though.
> I see nothing dishonest here. In most businesses they charge for
everything - this is one of the few industries giving away loads of stuff
for free and then when these companies do things to make money based on
their freebies we accuse them of dishonesty? I just don't get this at all.
Even if all the worst assumptions in these kinds of threads are all 100%
true - then who cares, no-ones forcing anyone to use this stuff. We can all
go off and write our own frameworks that do exactly what we want. If JSF is
a roaring success because loads of companies "bought the marketing hype" -
then whos to blame? Not the people selling in my book, its the
people/companies that buy into it.
Well, let me try a real-world analogy on you... and I'll be taking a BIG
chance with it, given the current political climate :) ...
Are you for or against the war in Iraq? Did you buy into the reasons
given for it initially?
It is easy to say that if you bought what President Bush and PM Blair
were saying at the time then you have no one to blame but yourself...
you listened to the hype, you believed it, and you went along with what
they were selling. And that is to a large extent true. But, is there
not some accountability by those who did the hyping initially (I won't
say lying, but certainly hyping is fair to say regardless)? I think
there is too, and the public outcry against our president is proof of
that (I don't know how it's been across the pond with the PM).
Now, before anyone hammers it, this is not a perfect analogy of
course... we the people didn't have a heck of a lot of choice but to
follow our leaders. With JSF, it's pretty much entirely up to us. But
still, if there is spin-doctoring going on, if there is hype going on,
if there is a sales job going on, isn't there some blame on both sides?
You may say "but that's OK for a company trying to sell you something".
But again, I remind you of my premise that all sales is, to some
degree, a form of dishonesty by its very nature. Obviously if you don't
buy that premise, you wouldn't buy the rest :)
Note too that I *AM NOT* accusing anyone of outright dishonesty here...
I don't believe anyone is knowingly lying about anything. The vendors
do believe they are trying to sell something worth-wild, and the expert
group certainly thinks they are creating something good, and the JSF
boosters out there believe they are promoting something cool. The only
*potential* dishonesty is in not admitting the initial goals, which seem
pretty obvious to many of us (and are fine by me if admitted).
Niall
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
