[openskills-dev] J2EE

Bruce Badger bbadger at openskills.com
Thu Sep 9 11:51:49 BST 2004


On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 20:06, Daniel Noll wrote:

> > This may just be semantics.  I'm comfortable with the idea of "software
> > libraries", and I was thinking that J2EE could be thought of as one -
> > albeit a big one with sub-libraries.

> J2EE could be both an abstract library skill, "/Skill/IT/Library/J2EE",
> and a framework skill, perhaps resting under
> "/Skill/IT/Application Infrastructure/J2EE".

I don't think we need to reflect any fundamental truth in the skills
tree.  The key test is: can I describe the stuff I did on engagement x
with the tree the way it is such that people searching the SkillsBase
can find me when I want them to.

Right now, we have J2EE once, and it's under language, and we all seem
to agree that needs to change.  In fact, darn it, I'll change it now ...

... there.  I think that is better.  Perhaps not perfect, but better.

> You could have knowledge of the framework, as I do, but have only dealt with 
> half the actual libraries.  Or you could know some of the libraries, without 
> knowing anything at all about the framework.  I imagine there are quite a few 
> lowly servlet developers in that set. :-)

OK, let's wait until we have a really specific case where someone needs
to make the distinction.  Then we can debate in the light of that
concrete case.

Do you have such a case among your engagements?

> A further question, then, is since WebSphere, JBoss, Tomcat and Jetty are all 
> implementations of various parts of J2EE, do they belong under its wing in 
> this infrastructure hierarchy?

I don't know.  There may not be a "right" answer.

One option is to say we don't need "J2EE" *at all* because if you use
WebSphere it's *implicit* that you used J2EE.  Just a thought.

Again, given a concrete example engagement we can thrash this out.

> > Indeed.  Though, nobody has admitted to having any .Net skills yet :-/
> 
> I guess I'll have to jam them into my resume, as part of my previous job, but 
> in all honesty, they didn't let me code quite enough to get the "framework" 
> side of things down.
> 
> But nevertheless, .NET should be considered a framework, whereas the specific 
> parts within (e.g. Windows Forms) should be considered a library.  (But is 
> that library's parent "Graphic Libraries", or ".NET Libraries"?  Oh dear.)

Again, let's look at it in the light of the specific engagement.

Each member is trying to promote the skills that they have.  To be
found, they need to link to the skills that people are likely to look
for.  So, again, perhaps we don't need a fundamental truth, but rather
we need to cast things is such a way that we put things in the most
"reasonable" place.

It would be not so good, for example, if we had "J2EE" many times in the
Skills Tree each expressing some subtle facet of the term if this caused
searchers to miss people because they selected the wrong J2EE to search!

I suspect we'll be fiddling with the tree for quite a while before we
settle on the best way of doing things.  ... and I don't think that's a
bad thing.

All the best,
	Bruce
-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.openskills.org/pipermail/openskills-dev/attachments/20040909/c86de727/attachment.pgp


More information about the OpenSkills-dev mailing list