----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank W. Zammetti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:58 AM
<snip> > But... at the risk of sounding like sour grapes (you'll just have to > take my word for it when I say that isn't the case), what about > something like my AJAX extensions to the HTML taglib? They were, IIRC, > backwards-compatible. Yet they were not accepted because no committer > was willing to accept them. What about my SetupItems? > Strictly-speaking it broke backwards-compatibility, but only in terms of > a DTD change, which, IIRC, has happened before with version upgrades. > What about my update for adding anchors to forwards? Again, unless I am > not remembering correctly, this too did not break backwards-compatibility. > > Again, I don't care that these things weren't accepted. I moved on long > ago :) But the point is, these are examples of things that didn't get > added because committers decided they shouldn't be. That is of course > your right as a committer, and I have no argument with that. Maybe this > goes more into #2 actual?Ö). </snip> IMO any contribution that isn't accepted is for one of three reasons 1) People don't like/agree with it or 2) no-one had the time to look at it or 3) no-one was interested in it. I can only really speak for myself, and I didn't have the time. I understand your frustration and for my part I'm sorry - I can remember the days when...trying to get a committers attention. <snip> > I agree that it's fine for Sun, Oracle et al to do what they are doing, > whether it's hype or whatever else. It's capitalism, it seems to work, > and it's fine. What bugs me is when they, or anyone, tries to convince > you it's something else. Hey, tell me your trying to make a buck and I > might be willing to buy! It's seems minor perhaps, but it's not: when > you know a business is trying to make money and yet tries to sell you on > some altruistic goal of "making your life better as a developer", well, > there's a certain degree of dishonesty there. It may not be an outright > lie, they may really believe they are making things better, but it's > certainly not the primary motivation. I suppose one could argue it's > just sales in generak, and I suppose it is, but then again, isn't sales > always to some degree dishonest? I'm not naive, I understand what the > motivation beneath it all is, so don't try and convince me otherwise. </snip> Whos trying to convince you of something that they don't thinks true? Do you not think that when the JSF spec was developed they didn't think it was the "best thing since sliced bread" or are you saying that they decided to come up with something they believed was inferior on purpose with the whole intention of conning us into buying there tools? I don't buy that - I believe the JSF expert group came up with what they thought was the best solution AND hoped to use it to sell lots of tools as well. Whats wrong with that? I see nothing dishonest here. In most businesses they charge for everything - this is one of the few industries giving away loads of stuff for free and then when these companies do things to make money based on their freebies we accuse them of dishonesty? I just don't get this at all. Even if all the worst assumptions in these kinds of threads are all 100% true - then who cares, no-ones forcing anyone to use this stuff. We can all go off and write our own frameworks that do exactly what we want. If JSF is a roaring success because loads of companies "bought the marketing hype" - then whos to blame? Not the people selling in my book, its the people/companies that buy into it. Niall --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
