Re: [vote] Propose OpenEJB for graduation to a TLP

[Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>]

David Blevins wrote:
>> Couldn't that be "in EJB and related technologies" ??
> 
> Certainly implementing the EJB spec is a constant for the project, so 
> that description would be adequate.  It does give me an "ick" feeling 
> though as it's very much in the nature of the project to go beyond EJB 
> and test the limits of what it means to write enterprise applications in 
> any way we can possibly imagine.  It just seems summing that up as "and 
> related technologies" just doesn't capture that spirit.  It'd definitely 
> be our preference to be able to portray ourselves as more than just EJB.

+1 for keeping that room, but in that case maybe come up with a better 
name than OpenEJB? The name is clearly designed to imply certain 
functionality.

Sanjiva.
-- 
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Director; Open Source Initiative; http://www.opensource.org/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Re: [vote] Propose OpenEJB for graduation to a TLP

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Apr 30, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> David Blevins wrote:
>>> Couldn't that be "in EJB and related technologies" ??
>> Certainly implementing the EJB spec is a constant for the project,  
>> so that description would be adequate.  It does give me an "ick"  
>> feeling though as it's very much in the nature of the project to  
>> go beyond EJB and test the limits of what it means to write  
>> enterprise applications in any way we can possibly imagine.  It  
>> just seems summing that up as "and related technologies" just  
>> doesn't capture that spirit.  It'd definitely be our preference to  
>> be able to portray ourselves as more than just EJB.
>
> +1 for keeping that room, but in that case maybe come up with a  
> better name than OpenEJB? The name is clearly designed to imply  
> certain functionality.

I don't think calling it OpenEJB is such a big issue.  The project is  
seven years old so a lot of us are really tied to the name and I  
think it does allow is the advantage to stretch the world of EJB a  
bit and still have people understand more or less what we're about.   
We hope though as they learn more about us they appreciate/love that  
we do things other EJB implementations don't/won't do and we aren't  
afraid to go outside the spec to do it.  We hope that it results in  
people thinking "hey, cool, that's how all ejb containers should  
work" or "this should be part of the spec."

-David



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org