On Apr 30, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Couldn't that be "in EJB and related technologies" ??
Certainly implementing the EJB spec is a constant for the project,
so that description would be adequate. It does give me an "ick"
feeling though as it's very much in the nature of the project to
go beyond EJB and test the limits of what it means to write
enterprise applications in any way we can possibly imagine. It
just seems summing that up as "and related technologies" just
doesn't capture that spirit. It'd definitely be our preference to
be able to portray ourselves as more than just EJB.
+1 for keeping that room, but in that case maybe come up with a
better name than OpenEJB? The name is clearly designed to imply
certain functionality.
I don't think calling it OpenEJB is such a big issue. The project is
seven years old so a lot of us are really tied to the name and I
think it does allow is the advantage to stretch the world of EJB a
bit and still have people understand more or less what we're about.
We hope though as they learn more about us they appreciate/love that
we do things other EJB implementations don't/won't do and we aren't
afraid to go outside the spec to do it. We hope that it results in
people thinking "hey, cool, that's how all ejb containers should
work" or "this should be part of the spec."
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
