• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Open source as the way some important software is developed now [Re: WebObjects Foundation]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Open source as the way some important software is developed now [Re: WebObjects Foundation]


  • Subject: Open source as the way some important software is developed now [Re: WebObjects Foundation]
  • From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:58:44 -0400


On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:

On Aug 15, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:

I am more in favor of the approach taken by the companies behind projects like Apache Geronimo (an open source spec-compliant J2EE server) - if you are to invest money in certain technology that you do not control, change the rules and take control!

I am not familiar with the story of Apache Geronimo, what happened?

The way the J2EE situation looked like a few years ago was this: There was a J2EE specification lead by Sun. There were commercial J2EE-compliant servers implementing it ("compliant" in a strict sense of passing Sun technology compatibility kit - TCK). There was one semi open source (or should I say pseudo open source) server JBoss - the code is open, but the development process is closed and controlled by a single company.


There wasn't a true open source compliant J2EE server. So some Apache folks got together and created one. From scratch! And negotiated TCK access with Sun (this was actually a very hard part). I don't know all the details of who bought who in the process and who is paying who to develop it (IBM is seriously involved now). But what's really important is that the process remains entirely open and fair, following Apache meritocracy rules. So there are no concerns about dependency on a single player and general future of the project - something that plagued WebObjects from at least the day I started using it in 98.


How this analogy is related to WO? Just look at WOLips - some folks got together and created a replacement for the Apple tools. That's a very inspiring example to me.


The next logical step (maybe I am dreaming) would be to create a clean room WO framework that is API-compatible with Apple's, reusing whatever open source code and J2EE environment possible. (regarding EOF - it should be fairly easy to bridge EOEditingContext with the current Cayenne stack, so creating EOAccess is really not required).

All this is doable and the LOE is reasonable (again remember WOLips success story). And it can be done fairly quickly if all the parties who suggested to petition Apple or market WO are ready to sponsor a fair open source community effort. I suspect this won't happen though. The community is rather small, and most of the folks would prefer to stay WO *users* (no negative meaning intended), and don't want to take extra burden to develop the stack. On the other hand if there are two or three mid-size companies who are ready to foot the bill ....

Andrus


_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: This email sent to email@hidden
References: 
 >WebObjects Foundation (From: Pascal Robert <email@hidden>)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: Pascal Robert <email@hidden>)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: "Pierce T. Wetter III" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: Andrus Adamchik <email@hidden>)
 >Re: WebObjects Foundation (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Code Comments
  • Next by Date: Re: Code Comments
  • Previous by thread: Re: WebObjects Foundation
  • Next by thread: Re: WebObjects Foundation
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread