Re: New Subprojects

> At 08:33 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>> >However, this is a really good point and a discussion we should have in >>> >Commons-land. Please come and join if interested. >>> >>> yes and after that you really should standardize on logging. Oh and then >>> standardize on lifecycle be

Re: New Subprojects

Hi Jon! Jon Stevens wrote: > > we use > > standard interfaces when they exist, otherwise we define one. > > What is standard? > > A 'standard' should be one of these, according to the American Heritage Dictionary: 1.Servin

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/23/01 2:42 AM, "Alex Fernández" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we use > standard interfaces when they exist, otherwise we define one. What is standard? -jon -- If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to tak

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/22/01 10:51 PM, "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, are you planning to propose these as reusable components after > jumping up and down about sharing? I have been jumping up and down about sharing for years now...suddenly you have decided to start listening AND participa

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/22/01 8:23 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ok. Remember the motivation is to provide software components that can >> be shared across projects. If they are tailored to one specific >> framework, they won't easily be able to work in another. >> >> If you make it more gener

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > > yer well whatever. Illusions can be grand, I guess reality you > will have to learn through error. I am a father of 2, and I believe three things: 1) Struts/Taglibs, Avalon, and Turbine are 1, 2, and 3 years ahead of these new subprojects. 2) Some things

Re: New Subprojects

ect approved without an existing codebase. If you were already a Committer to another Jakarta subproject, then you could set something up in the new Commons sandbox, and start community building there. Unfortunately, we still don't have any type of incubator for new subprojects propo

RE: New Subprojects

At 07:52 23/3/01 -0800, James House wrote: >There are some very fine lines to walk when trying to build code that is >re-usable, and also clean and straight forward, and also tries to re-use >some code itself. For instance, I immediately cringe at thinking the job >scheduler should be dependent

Re: New Subprojects

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Peter Donald wrote: > You mean discuss a strategy that components should conform to so as to > interact with other frameworks? ... And if components don't implement this > strategy (aka standard) do they go straight to jail without passing go and > without collecting $200? >

Re: New Subprojects

yer well whatever. Illusions can be grand, I guess reality you will have to learn through error. Good luck. Cheers, Pete *-* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | eve

RE: New Subprojects

>Well the parts in Avalon CVS are the "base" of my >cron job server that did most of what you wanted ;) > >From memory the other blocks I created were > >PersistentJobStore - stores job definitions and scheduling >JobDispatcher - ie used the job defintions to create list of ant tasks and >execut

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > > At 08:33 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> >However, this is a really good point and a discussion we should have in > >> >Commons-land. Please come and join if interested. > >> > >> yes and after that you really should standardize on logging. Oh and then > >>

Re: New Subprojects

At 08:33 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> >However, this is a really good point and a discussion we should have in >> >Commons-land. Please come and join if interested. >> >> yes and after that you really should standardize on logging. Oh and then >> standardize on lifecycle because t

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > yes and after that you really should standardize on logging. Oh and then > standardize on lifecycle because thats important too. Wait you have Avalon > ! How long do you think before my final prediction bears true? If already > you are talking about "standardisation" when tha

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > > At 07:59 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >Alex Fernández wrote: > >> So, in a word, we don't need components that integrate with each other; > >> we need components that need no integration at all. Perhaps we would be > >> better off with a framework; but that'

Re: New Subprojects

At 07:59 23/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >Alex Fernández wrote: >> >> Jon Stevens wrote: >> >> > I can't wait to see what it will be like to configure all these Commons >> > components and how many .xml files I will have to edit or how much >> > configuration code I will have to write t

Re: New Subprojects

Jon Stevens wrote: > I can't wait to see what it will be like to configure all these Commons > components and how many .xml files I will have to edit or how much > configuration code I will have to write to make it work... The subtext of the project is definitely "how can we create independent pa

Re: New Subprojects

Alex Fernández wrote: > > Jon Stevens wrote: > > > I can't wait to see what it will be like to configure all these Commons > > components and how many .xml files I will have to edit or how much > > configuration code I will have to write to make it work... > > You're right, of course. If instead

Re: New Subprojects

James House wrote: > > Maybe I'm still unsure of the purpose of "the commons" but, do you really > want something as huge as a process automator in there? -- We're talking > about something on the scale of a full-blown EJB container here. It's not > something somebody would want packaged along w

Re: New Subprojects

Alex Fernández <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In fact, if the component configuration cannot be integrated in our > global configuration scheme, it will not do. My concern as well. > So, in a word, we don't need components that integrate with each other; > we need components that need no integ

Re: New Subprojects

Hi folks! Jon Stevens wrote: > Maybe one day people will realize that it is significantly easier to just > download the 400k turbine.jar and link against that than it is to spend a > huge amount of effort decoupling and interfacing everything to oblivion. For us, it's not about easy or difficult

Re: New Subprojects

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 3/22/01 7:23 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No it couldn't from what I understand. Commons won't allow imports directly > > from turbine/avalon and to try to do such a complex system generic from > > start may be a bit of a PITA

RE: New Subprojects

At 10:06 22/3/01 -0700, James House wrote: >>> Project 1: an Enterprise Job Scheduler >>> = >>For #1: Taking the best parts from Avalon and Turbine and merging them into >>a Commons would be good. >> > >I have not looked far into the Schedulers in Avalon or Tur

Re: New Subprojects

At 11:51 22/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >Peter Donald wrote: >> >> At 11:20 22/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> > >> >Why wouldn't the import be allowed? That's one of the reasons for >> >commons : to provide a place to collaborate across projects... >> >> Go back to the ori

RE: New Subprojects

>> Project 1: an Enterprise Job Scheduler >> = > >> Project 2: a Workflow Engine / Process Automator >> = > >This is something we need as well. > >For #1: Taking the best parts from Avalon and Turbine and merging them into >a

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/22/01 7:34 PM, "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is what makes the Commons a difficult project, there is often a natural > desire to make it into a framework. ie: Turbine LOL! This cracks me up... Maybe one day people will realize that it is significantly easier to just d

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > > At 11:20 22/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > > >Why wouldn't the import be allowed? That's one of the reasons for > >commons : to provide a place to collaborate across projects... > > Go back to the original discussion. Essentially all components should not > r

Re: New Subprojects

At 11:20 22/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >Peter Donald wrote: >> > Jon Stevens : >> > >For #2: It certainly could start in the Commons. >> >> No it couldn't from what I understand. Commons won't allow imports directly >> from turbine/avalon and to try to do such a complex system generic

RE: New Subprojects

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr. > > It also functions simply as a place to work - what goes on in the > 'sandbox' doesn't have to be an Official Component (tm). > Sure enough, I guess. Conor --

Re: New Subprojects

Conor MacNeill wrote: > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr. > > Sent: Friday, 23 March 2001 3:20 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: New Subprojects > > > > > > Peter Donald wrote:

RE: New Subprojects

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Geir Magnusson Jr. > Sent: Friday, 23 March 2001 3:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Subprojects > > > Peter Donald wrote: > > > Jon Stevens : > > > >For #2: It certai

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/22/01 7:23 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No it couldn't from what I understand. Commons won't allow imports directly > from turbine/avalon and to try to do such a complex system generic from > start may be a bit of a PITA at this stage. Especially when both > turbine/avalon

Re: New Subprojects

Peter Donald wrote: > > Jon Stevens : > > >For #2: It certainly could start in the Commons. > > No it couldn't from what I understand. Commons won't allow imports directly > from turbine/avalon and to try to do such a complex system generic from > start may be a bit of a PITA at this stage. Espec

Re: New Subprojects

At 07:03 22/3/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote: >on 3/22/01 2:15 PM, "James House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Project 1: an Enterprise Job Scheduler >> = > >Both Avalon and Turbine offer this. > >> Project 2: a Workflow Engine / Process Automator >> ===

Re: New Subprojects

on 3/22/01 2:15 PM, "James House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Project 1: an Enterprise Job Scheduler > = Both Avalon and Turbine offer this. > Project 2: a Workflow Engine / Process Automator > = This is something we need

Re: New Subprojects

> James House wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > Project 2: a Workflow Engine / Process Automator > > = > > Description: > > > > An engine for doing Workflow and Process Automation within or without a J2EE > > application server. > > > > Desired Features: > > > > * I

RE: New Subprojects

At 12:26 23/3/01 +1100, Peter Donald wrote: >At 06:09 22/3/01 -0700, James House wrote: >>Thanks for the pointer. How do I get a "PMC" to recommend the project? > >they are all subscribed to this list (or should be) and the names of PMC >members are on the whoweare page. Hmmm I forgot to say "

Re: New Subprojects

James House wrote: > Thanks for the pointer. How do I get a "PMC" to recommend the project? A good approach would be to post your proposal here, where we could see it. For a sample proposal, see the "charter.html" file in the new Jakarta-Commons CVS. > As far as #2 goes (a guarantee of succe

RE: New Subprojects

At 06:09 22/3/01 -0700, James House wrote: >Thanks for the pointer. How do I get a "PMC" to recommend the project? they are all subscribed to this list (or should be) and the names of PMC members are on the whoweare page. >As far as #2 goes (a guarantee of success) - my employer is offering to

RE: New Subprojects

>>I'm interested in starting an open source project or two, and would like >>them to fall under an Apache style license. >> >>I'd also be happy for them to fall under the Jakarta umbrella, and am >>curious what I'd need to do to have them do so >>(otherwise I'll slap them up on sourceforge or som

RE: New Subprojects

>I think both projects sounds great and targets what you would want/need in a bigger project. >Having worked with products such as Infooffice, StoryServer, Interwoven I have allot of input >on how to make the second project and I would also like it to target content management since >the CMS produ

RE: New Subprojects

27; > Subject: RE: New Subprojects > > > "Mega Ditto" I'm for this project. > > -Original Message- > From: Bip Thelin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL P

Re: New Subprojects

At 02:15 22/3/01 -0800, James House wrote: >I'm interested in starting an open source project or two, and would like >them to fall under an Apache style license. > >I'd also be happy for them to fall under the Jakarta umbrella, and am >curious what I'd need to do to have them do so >(otherwise I'

RE: New Subprojects

"Mega Ditto" I'm for this project. -Original Message- From: Bip Thelin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Subprojects See comments below. Ja

Re: New Subprojects

See comments below. James House wrote: > > [...] > > Project 2: a Workflow Engine / Process Automator > = > Description: > > An engine for doing Workflow and Process Automation within or without a J2EE > application server. > > Desired Features: > > * I ha

New Subprojects

Hi, I'm interested in starting an open source project or two, and would like them to fall under an Apache style license. I'd also be happy for them to fall under the Jakarta umbrella, and am curious what I'd need to do to have them do so (otherwise I'll slap them up on sourceforge or somewhere)