What a waste of effort and time. There are already few good open source j2ee application servers available. They should have joined them and made some available contribution, rather then reinventing the wheel.You must be one of three to say an OS initiative is a waste:
What a waste of effort and time. There are already few good open source j2ee application servers available. They should have joined them and made some available contribution, rather then reinventing the wheel.What is the additional things you have in the JFOx , which you dont get from the JBoss or Spring(Application Framework) .I have just seen the listing of the projects they are planning , seems things are same . Are not they reinventing the same stuff , I think so ? It may be early to say , let me spend more time on understanding what it provides additional what we dont have in plenty .
let me spend more time on understanding what it provides additional what we dont have in plentyokay ... i'll give you another 48 hours! :-)
If you are aware of it why dont you jot it here .Already I am spending the weekend with Spring AOP stuff , honestly I wont be able to make within 48 hours . If you jot a points which are not present with JBoss /Spring , I will then look at the detials at JFox.let me spend more time on understanding what it provides additional what we dont have in plentyokay ... i'll give you another 48 hours! :-)
Why do you call this a waste of time?Do not make the wheel!!!I dont call this waste of time , but definetly reinventing wheel if it provides the identical features .
waste of time??? it is bullshit!!!Microsoft produces the Windows, and let us give up Linux or Unix? It is what you say 'reinventing the wheel'? I said you has a funny brain and funny logic thinking.What is open-source? What is the soul of open-source? JFox is the contribution from Chinese, they are respectful. Just drive the fox car, forget about what the funny guy said.It definitely looks like wheel reinvention. JFox team, please use my template on the very first page of your site. Unless you provide explanation I ( and some other guys) will see your efforts as wasted:
So what? If you don't like it - don't. If I'm a developer and want to evolve by making my own mistake (by for instance creating my own framework from scratch), what's it to you if I create something that's "already been done"?I feel pity. Trying to continue your line of reasoning I hear:
The _only_ thing it will leave you with is more options - which you don't have to explore if you don't want to.
If you feel that JFox have wasted their time, fine - but to be honest I couldn't care less.
Go contribute to whatever project you think is not re-inventing the wheel and feel good about yourself instead of complaining about other people's work.I certainly do. I just do not get your attitude: what is wrong with helping people to make judgment about a project? Folks, please reveal things, which differentiate your project from similar ones, on very first page. I do not want to miss a fresh idea, which might be buried among trivial code exercises.
I feel pity. Trying to continue your line of reasoning I hear: - Surgeons: do not study mistakes of the past learn on your own;- Builders and architect: do not study math and past experience, learn as you build things which occasionally crumble;…..You hear what you want to hear, I'm not really sure where I mentioned that you _should_ re-invent the wheel? I just said that perhaps some people want to, as a learning experience - whilst still trying to produce something useful.
I just do not get your attitude: what is wrong with helping people to make judgment about a project?You're not making judgement on the project, you're making judgement on how they present it. Perhaps you should try to describe what you don't like about it (functional wise) instead of just claiming that they're re-inventing the wheel and therefore it's bad? From what you're saying you would choose a product from what they put as a reason for creating it? I would rather look at the features and try it if it sounds interesting.
You're not making judgement on the project, you're making judgement on how they present it.That is exactly what I said: It definitely _looks_ like wheel reinvention.
Perhaps you should try to describe what you don't like about it (functional wise) instead of just claiming that they're re-inventing the wheel and therefore it's bad?Did I say I do not like the project?
From what you're saying you would choose a product from what they put as a reason for creating it?
I would rather look at the features and try it if it sounds interesting.That is the whole point: overall it looks like yet another container with JMC, Message Beans etc. Why should others /than author(s)/ and I be interested in this particular container implementation? Give me reasons, please.
Mr. Ignatyev, it really doesn't matter if you choose to use a project or not.are you sure? :)
Why do you get to be the judge of whether a project exists or doesn't exist?Can you point me where I judged if the project should exist or not?
As far as we can see, you haven't lifted a finger to help them in their project. Why should you get any input into it?
If they can create a working server that meets their needs, more power to them. I think it's great that they can work on this and get it done. I probably won't ever use their product, but I'm not about to tell them that their project is bad.Where I said that their project is bad?
It obviously meets a need for them and they should be congratulated for this milestone in their project.Sorry, it is not obvious for me. Let me ask you this: suppose that you are chief developer and just discovered that your subordinate has reached a milestone in writing of a new logging framework.
Unless you provide explanation I ( and some other guys) will see your efforts as ‘wasted’My bad, this really sends out signals that you like the project. I do aplogise.
>>If this turns out to be "yet another container with JMC, Message Beans etc", tell me then why that is bad?Unless you provide explanation I ( and some other guys) will see your efforts as wastedMy bad, this really sends out signals that you like the project. I do aplogise.If this turns out to be "yet another container with JMC, Message Beans etc", tell me then why that is bad? I think competition is good. If JBoss and JOnAS gets better because there is an alternative out there - great.
But acording to your pattern and what you are saying, Geronimo shouldn't never be started, they all should work on JBOSS or JONAS.Hivemind should never appear since Spring was here before.Wrong interpretation of my words :( .
Spring should never be here since Pico was already here.Actually Spring is several months older than PicoContainer, and the Interface21 framework released with Expert One-on-One J2EE Design and Development, which introduced Spring's core ideas, is another 5 or so months older than the Spring open source project itself. We just didn't announce the Spring project until last year's ServerSide Symposium, when the object source project had been in vigorous development for 5 or 6 months.
The idea that should only be one of anything is pretty silly. RgdsRodRod, who and where expressed the idea? Please relax, nobody here attacks Spring.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant that the attacks on JFox earlier in this thread were silly, and wasn't referring to Spring in that comment :-)The idea that should only be one of anything is pretty silly. RgdsRodRod, who and where expressed the idea? Please relax, nobody here attacks Spring.
Hrrm. Ok. Than switch Pico with Spring in that statement :-)). It should become "Pico should never be here since Spring was already here." :-) Anyways my point is that innovation can come only if people do something. I could even say that innovation is most of the time the result of a series of mistakes, yours or others. I tend to agree with Konstantin, though, that you should consider the already existing solutions to a problem before solving it yourself, but with all this hype about OS app server etc. I find it hard to believe that the Jfox guys didn't consider contributing to an existing one instead of starting a new one.Spring should never be here since Pico was already here.Actually Spring is several months older than PicoContainer, and the Interface21 framework released with Expert One-on-One J2EE Design and Development, which introduced Spring's core ideas, is another 5 or so months older than the Spring open source project itself. We just didn't announce the Spring project until last year's ServerSide Symposium, when the object source project had been in vigorous development for 5 or 6 months.Having said that, I think competition and innovation is good. Even projects that don't themselves go on to be widely used can pioneer and popularize good ideas. The idea that should only be one of anything is pretty silly. RgdsRod
