At 02:22 AM 11/17/2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: >* Raul Nohea Goodness ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Unfortunately, 'beans' have now caught on the the enterprise > > > managers' mind (whatever that is) and thats all that they > > > can think of, or ask for on resumes. So sticking with 'beans' > > > means you don't have to try to re-educate a mind set. > >While i accept the raw facts behind this argument, i think we need to >avoid a "copying Java solution", as this approach is ultimately doomed >to failure. If someone wants to start this debate off as another >thread, i'll contribute, however not today, as I am supposed to >spending quality time with the wife.
Well, I think copying a Java solution is doomed from a low level technical perspective because Java is a different language. But I think coming up with similar naming (if the conventions are similar) and honoring what actually was an excellent idea on the part of Sun by continuing to adopt the name seems just fine to me. The other aspect is using similar interfaces. I think there should be little shame in coming up with interfaces that are fairly identical to Java as well as it will make stuff like SOAP much easier for interoperability between the languages. I could be wrong though. Paul would be the expert there. Imagine, for example, that an organization has already bought into the idea of a J2EE server, but wishes to glue the services together more rapidly than they do now. But maintaining some interface integrity, we can enhance the likelihood of being able to link Perl to Java. While I think it is also OK to consider Perl it's own P5EE island, I also think part of the E for Enterprise means I for Interoperability. So to some degree this is why I like Brian's servlet API for Perl, and I also am for similarity in terminology where appropriate. I think if we steal the Java convention and the basic idea behind beans then why not just keep it called beans. >If anyone really wants them to be called Bunnies[2] then they should >go ahead and put the effort into either producing a kick ass container >system or an even more kick ass P5EE presentation/website that >inspires the masses. The later of course runs the risk of inspiring >the masses and achieving nothing and was only included to acknowledge >the fact we need a marketting element to this project. That's true. Whoever can come up with a container can call it whatever he or she wants. :) But that doesn't mean there can't be valid debate otherwise. I think these things will hash out in the next month. I think we are more or less coming to similar conclusion about the semantics and you'll see less of these sorts of posts than in this first month.
