I think this new model has more +'s then -'s so I am for the switch. The smaller groups will hopefully fuel the decoupled development model more so then one large group. Small efficient/effective "connector" modules stand to do more for P5EE then trying to solve some vast unknown problem.
Aaron Johnson On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 12:57, Stephen Adkins wrote: > Hi, > > As a follow-up to my conclusions from the last vote ... > > http://archive.develooper.com/p5ee%40perl.org/msg01105.html > > and particularly this point > > 2. The P5EE project should focus on explaining the various > solutions to the Enterprise Development problem rather than > trying to adopt or create a single one at this point. > > I would like to propose a new focus for the P5EE project. > > I think that the mission of the project is still intact. > > The mission of the P5EE project is to promote the development, > deployment, and acceptance of Enterprise Systems written in Perl. > > However, I think the right strategy to achieve this is to allow > people who do Enterprise Development in perl (or know how to and aspire to) > collect into groups with a more-or-less consistent way of handling > enterprise development problems. > > Each group needs core members, who actively use and develop > Perl components in an overall architecture which solves the problems > of enterprise systems (http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/definitions.html) > and who are interested in documenting that architecture and supporting > others in the use of it through the P5EE mailing list. > > I think that every Perl *component* generally has a community (i.e. > AxKit, SOAP, POE, Alzabo, Template Toolkit) through its mailing list, > but what is lacking is a community surrounding a complete enterprise > application architecture with all of its constituent components. > > I think that these groups will generally form around major/popular > frameworks such as AxKit, bOP, Extropia Toolkit, OpenInteract, etc. > > However, what is needed to become a P5EE Group is core member(s) who > are willing to pull together (or write) components in a coherent > architecture which increasingly satisfy all of the requirements > of enterprise systems (http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/definitions.html), > *document this architecture*, and promote this architecture by > supporting users of this architecture through the P5EE mailing list. > > Note that the following three elements are critical for a P5EE Group. > > 1. COMMUNITY > 2. CODE > 3. DOCUMENTATION > > For instance, I volunteer as a core member for a P5EE Group I would > call the "App-Context Group". (I am recasting P5EEx::Blue as App::Context.) > http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/p5ee/App-Context/ > I am committed to documenting an architecture that incorporates many > perl components (many of which will be shared by other P5EE Groups) > and which increasingly satisfies the requirements of enterprise development. > I am committed (for the foreseeable future) to supporting other users > who wish to adopt this architecture (subject of course to availability, > like all open source efforts) and working with them to continually > enhance the architecture, its components, and its documentation. > > I believe that if we could get several "champions" to make the same > commitments, we could get a handful of P5EE Groups going and > reinvigorate the P5EE project. (Note that a P5EE Group does not need > to be able to satisfy all of the requirements of enterprise development > on day 1. But it must be committed to *increasingly* satisfy these > requirements.) > > This would allow some developer who is investigating the feasibility > of enterprise development in perl to find the P5EE web site, identify > the various *actively supported* architectures, and gain confidence > to get on board with one and begin developing his application according > to its guidelines. > > The reason that I think it is desirable for these to all operate > on the P5EE list (or future sublists) is so that there is lots of > interaction and interoperation, and perhaps some convergence. > > What do people think about this? > Are there others who want to step forward to form other P5EE Groups? > > Stephen > >
