DonB,
Although agreeable to the post above. It might attract some LAMP people.... hehehe. Its just too bloody blunt.
Talli,
Paste the above post to your DonB's collection of posts.
Everyone,
Although I am for portability but given the choice to improve or make the toolkit portable. I will choose to improve since admittedly its still very unpolished. Although this is just my opinion and my contribution to the toolkit is very small.
Maybe there is the lack of itch or challenge on OpenACS for John and Michael. Why not the challenge of making OpenACS not portable but have better integration. Like ns_java, soap, xml, calendar synch, ldap, etc. Of course this does not get into the itch of John and Michael which is portability. But it might be close enough.
I think we have more marketing gain if OpenACS has better integration capabilities that having OpenACS being portable. The same way MS is selling .net against java.
If OpenACS can:
- use users of current corporate systems. Most likely via ldap
- thick application like Word can save to CR. Most likely via webdav
- OpenACS can offer its application via web services. Most likely via SOAP, WDSL, etc.
Although the above did not make OpenACS portable but sure does make it easier to be integrated with. I believe that will be more compelling reason for users to use PpenACS than making it portable.
I am presenting this ideas as a possible itch to John or Michael who are exceptional developers. Some of ideas has been done but little has been an official implementation to OpenACS. If anybody who can make this integration with good design it has to be John or Michael. So what do you think? John and Michael scratches an itch and OpenACS toolkit becomes better at integration. Win-win, of course if John and Michael will consider this to be their itch.
