<html><body>
<p><tt>dan.j.allen@gmail.com wrote on 01/09/2009 09:09:01 PM:<br>
<br>
> > Trial "standards" are never a good<br>
> > idea. That's why open source plays an important role in understanding<br>
> > what the industry wants prior to nailing things down in a standard.<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't think the same could be said here. It's not a conscious effort<br>
> > that the platform as a whole is going to move to this XML style and just<br>
> > doesn't have the time. At least not yet it isn't.<br>
> <br>
> I might be interpreting this wrong, but are you saying that extensible<br>
> XML authoring has not been proven in the open source world? That it<br>
> isn't now the defacto standard approach to XML configuration? That<br>
> developers are not excited about it? I think Spring, Seam, and Mule<br>
> all demonstrate that this is a viable approach and that people are not<br>
> only accepting it, but expecting it. Why would we want to hold back<br>
> progress?<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>A statement was made that it was ok to "trial" the new syntax with WebBeans</tt><br>
<tt>and not have the platform follow suit. I was arguing against "trial"s of</tt><br>
<tt>anything in standards and that the platform needs to move or not as a </tt><br>
<tt>whole.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I think there have been "trials" in open source, as it should be. I'm</tt><br>
<tt>only stating I don't want a mishmash platform of stuff. I want integration</tt><br>
<tt>and consistency.</tt><br>
<tt><br>
Thanks,<br>
Jim Knutson<br>
WebSphere J2EE Architect</tt><br>
<br>
</body></html>