* Robin Berjon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011024 13:43]: > > * do we solve the wider problem of CPAN quality-control or an SDK, or > > just write the modules we need? > > No, that's not our problem. However, what we do want to do imho is > to provide a consistent world-view. For instance if P5EE must > include some SOAP, then we'd use SOAP::Lite behind the scenes but > put the API into P5EE::SOAP which would act as a wrapper pretending > to be fully within the P5EE space and providing consistent method > names.
IMHO, this is absolutely the attitude that we should have if we hope to get something done in a useful lifetime. Speaking from experience, there are people who don't like how SPOPS does object persistence or how OpenInteract performs its application server duties, and that's fine with me. There are lots of other options. But P5EE aims to be a single option, which means that if we try to create an implementation as opposed to an API we're treading into areas where many people have deep feelings. (Not me, of course! :-) While not making success impossible, these feelings (and the inevitable hostilities) can be significant impediments. Also, I'd like to add my two-cents in for a consistent security framework as a fundamental part of all this. Usually people in Enterprises like security, and with JAAS (Java Authentication and Authorization Services) there's something decent to start from. Chris -- Chris Winters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Building enterprise-capable snack solutions since 1988.
