Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Mash Apache Derby with New OpenOffice 2.0 feature 52

Posted by Hemos
from the doing-the-mash-ups dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Document storage is hot, hot, hot! There has been an explosion of methodologies and tool sets — both open source and proprietary — to fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents. Mash Apache Derby with a new OpenOffice 2.0 feature to create a repository that lets you store, search, and extract ODF documents in a standards-based manner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mash Apache Derby with New OpenOffice 2.0 feature

Comments Filter:
  • Sirs (Score:1, Funny)

    If it's having 2.0 in it, it must be good!
  • by Black-Man (198831) on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:37PM (#17983972)
    Because the SEC is hot, hot, hot on the trail of your accounting and related correspondences.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:49PM (#17984120)
    ...can we stop "mashing" things. Right now.

    It is a silly new word, which brings no new meaning.

    There are plenty of good alternatives, technical or not -- combine, connect, link, interface, integrate, etc.
  • Holy bloated... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12, 2007 @12:56PM (#17984226)
    OpenOffice, Java and Derby... I hope you have 10GB of RAM to spare.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      OpenOffice, Java and Derby... I hope you have 10GB of RAM to spare.

      Derby is actually quite small, it is around 1mb, compared to 42 mb for most MySQL downloads for instance. And it is a very capable database engine. Java takes up a lot of memory to increase performance, true, but only if it is unused memory, and you can decrease the size used with JVM startup parameters and still get very good performance.

      OO, ok, I'll give you that. It is probably the biggest app in a given Linux installation, but compared t
  • Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:01PM (#17984290)
    An anonymous reader, points us to an IBM article that you can't read without signing up for, gives no summary, and whose title makes no sense "mash apache derby" ? Can we reject stories like this or at least make them clarify what the hell they're even talking about?

    Registration-required links make baby jesus cry.

    • Second that! (Score:3, Informative)

      by nietsch (112711)
      so true.
      And what is even more amazing, after logging in (with bugmenot) the beginning of the article makes no mention what the special feature of OOo actually isThe go straight into installing and building a db. No mention whatsoever what the problem area is and why his solution is a good one. That combined with the silly pageturning thing made me give up reading it.
    • by moranar (632206)

      Can we reject stories like this[...]?

      You know, the Firehose [slashdot.org] is there for exactly that reason.

      • Firehose is currently only available to some users (not including me, although some of my friends can see it). I clicked on this article to find out what it was about, after reading the title and summary once and still having no clue. Half way down the comments, I still have no idea what it's about.
  • by Chacham (981)
    Mash Apache Derby

    Don't look now, but your apachiderbis is showing...
  • So you use Apache Derby [apache.org] plus java to do what can already, IIRC, be done with n other document/version control systems. Why is this better? Why should I register with IBM to read a document created by a guy from Northrop Grumman (We Build the B-2 Bomber!)?
    • by Kadin2048 (468275)
      Why should I register with IBM to read a document created by a guy from Northrop Grumman (We Build the B-2 Bomber!)?

      He's probably a subcontractor. IBM/NG/LM all share personnel back and forth on projects. It's not uncommon to run into people who've worked for years on projects for one company, while getting their paychecks from somebody else. I think it's because the big contracting companies seem to avoid pilfering staff from each other, and instead just subcontract them out. I can't decide if this sort of
      • "I can't decide if this sort of 'cooperation' is better or worse for employees."
        It's better than joblessnes, but often worse from a work/life balance as you are still always trying to get onto the next big contract.
        -nB
      • by VENONA (902751)
        "Welcome to the public sector."

        I'm used to this term referring to .edu, .gov., etc. Did you mean 'private sector'? Or do we need a new term for corporations that have agreed to not recruit from each other's work force (which might *gasp* improve the workers bargaining position), but rather whore their workers out via contract?

        That's a hot button for me, as back in the mid-eighties, I saw two semiconductor companies (the only two) in the same small town work a no-pilfering agreement. If you worked for one, t
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Kadin2048 (468275)
          When I said "public sector," I meant 'the portion of the private sector which is devoted in whole or large part to fulfilling the demands of the public, i.e. governmental, sector; in particular U.S. government contractors.' The field is dominated by a number of well-known and very large players, which compete with each other on one hand, but also seem to have certain gentlemanly agreements on the other. They are, for most intents and purposes, essentially in a grey area somewhere between temp agencies which
          • by VENONA (902751)
            Not sure I agree with Kadin2048's definition of 'public sector'. But especially as contractors have been in so much in the news lately (not just Blackwater and others of the same sort), I wish someone with mod points would hang an 'interesting' on the parent post.
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      "a document created by a guy from Northrop Grumman (We Build the B-2 Bomber!)?"
      Gee I don't know. Probably because Northrop Grumman has a lot of experience with managing huge amounts of documents.
      BTW Northrop Grumman also built the Lunar Lander.
  • by blantonl (784786)
    I assume that this is a competing approach to the Office 2007/Sharepoint components that Microsoft has.

    Well done!
  • by rongage (237813) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:15PM (#17984484)

    Haven't these folk heard of Web-DAV before?

    • by dozer (30790)
      Unfortunately Microsoft killed WebDAV [atarex.com] for everybody. They're so good at that it's scary.

      Now, according to Jeremy Allison [linuxworld.com], CIFS seems to be the best way to share stuff. I think he's right. At least, I can't think of any more reliable cross-platform file share technology.

      Sigh.
  • by cascadingstylesheet (140919) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:16PM (#17984492)
    ... and a stupid new buzzword is stopped in it's tracks! ;)
  • by nathan s (719490) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:17PM (#17984504) Homepage
    I know it's too late, but if you have any heart at all, please do not spread this extremely annoying use of the word any further. I do not want Apache on my dinner plate, nor in any way do I want it smashed, pulverized, or otherwise rendered into unrecognizable goop like the word "mash" itself has apparently been. I've suffered through blogs and vlogs and podcasts and bennifers and brangelinas - and even Lewis Carroll would be turning in his grave at these dreadful portmanteaus which are less about expanding the language and more about general journalistic laziness. othrwse we mit as wll all uz IMspk and wrdsmsh all r communc8s 4 lezins sak k thx
    • yes i agree the use of the word "mash" should be distilled to it's essential form...
    • by Essef (12025)
      Actually, there is nothing wrong with the word Mashup. I've seen several people now complaining that yet another neologism has creeped into the already crowded web vernacular. It's just a "relatively" new word that means something "relatively" new. It's not even indicative of the web being overrun by the mindless masses and buzzword junkies, that happened long ago.

      S.
    • Seriously. It's a ridiculous sounding word that sounds like I'm regurgitating my food.

      Um, Hurp, Caugh, BLOOOGGGGGGGGGGGG.

    • by p3d0 (42270)

      I've suffered through blogs and vlogs and podcasts and bennifers and brangelinas...
      Don't forget Filliam H. Muffman [urbandictionary.com].
  • OpenOffice 2.1? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lord Satri (609291) <alexandreleroux@gma i l .com> on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:29PM (#17984700) Homepage Journal
    I know TFA really indicates v2.0, but this "new OpenOffice 2.0" sounds strange considering OpenOffice 2.1 has been in the wild for a while [openoffice.org].
  • I like the Alfresco approach the best myself, especially 2.0 coming out. Access, Policies, Rules, Indexing, Portability and auditing. Over the web, through web dav and version control on top of that. Hard to beat.
  • by littlewink (996298) on Monday February 12, 2007 @01:43PM (#17984934)
    and they've increased in number since the early '90's.
  • Cmon guys, stop trolling about 'registration' sites when you can just use bugmenot (http://www.bugmenot.com/) to get a sign-in. But then you'll have to download the pdf... As for the article, other posters are right - better solutions already exist than those outlined in this 'slashvertising' piece for DB2. As for local search - Google desktop, anyone?
  • In case somebody wonders what the miraculous "new feature" is: the cited article says
    "mash it with a new feature in OpenOffice 2.0, the Open Document Format (ODF)"
    wow. I somehow expected more.

    r.
  • ..."Hot, Hot, Hot!"...!?!? Can we start making fun of them for saying that yet or are we still debating the article?

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...