On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??
..
Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
We are part of that market - and I have no illusions about our ability to
set standards; we canot; we ONLY seem to do so when we happen to a) to
jump on the boat with the right technology and b) get the market to play
in our playground. (Marginally helped of course by the fact that so many
talented peopel and companies come to play here that we do set the odd's
for 'a' and have 'b' causal).
If your argument is that the quality of Zimbra code is relatively low; or
too immature by itself - and that is why you worry about spoiling the
market by betting on the wrong horse - then we should simply reject -this-
proposal based on the fact that there is a) not enough quality in the
donation and b) no hope for it to improve in our playground.
An analogy would be the Java web app environment 5 years ago, when Model 2
frameworks came along and people realised that that was the way things
should be done, instead of Model 1. Just as I would not have been in
favour of bringing a Model 1 framework to the ASF at that time, I'm not in
favour of bringing in what I consider to be a previous-generation
JavaScript framework now. Why would we want to perpetuate the old way of
doing things?
--
Martin Cooper
But in general - having the ASF offer it's eco system a place where we
all can work on Ajax (and have synergy with all the portal code we have,
with MyFaces^H^H^H^H^H^HOurFaces) seems like the right thing to do
-when- there are sufficient people interested to work on it. Which is
the right validating feedback loop.
Dw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
