geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:52:54 GMT

On Jul 11, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> Let me clarify.  I think we have two very different code bases  
> here.  The ORB is top-levelable and console is not.

This is true.

>   By top-levelable I mean that it is a big standalone code base and  
> can reasonably become a standalone project.  This is also supported  
> by the fact that most ORB projects in open source are standalone  
> projects and there are many commercial standalone ORBs.

Yes, and right now, I thought the consensus of us *and* TriFork was  
that it *wasn't* to be a standalone subproject or a top-level- 
project, but rather brought close and part of Geronimo for now.   
Being standalone or TLP is something that can be looked at later as  
we learn more and see how the community and code evolves.

>  The console is neither.  Since these are very different code  
> bases, I think they need to be addressed differently:
> Console:
> We bring the code directly into the geronimo/trunk/sandbox.  We  
> work on the code there, and any people that worked on the code  
> before the donation, contribute via patches.  Once the code is  
> ready, we move the code to /geronimo/trunk/applications.
> ORB:
> We bring the code and programmers into the Apache Incubator as a  
> subproject supported by and destined for Geronimo.  We develop the  
> initial code an community in incubator, and then bring it into the  
> Geronimo project with a separate SVN location.  Once the project  
> develops a good community of it's own we move the project to a top  
> level project (this could take several years).

These two solutions are not in conflict.

The problem is that IIRC, the consensus for the ORB wasn't to do it  
in incubator, but bring the TriFork code and people here and close  
and involved directly in what we are doing.

I have no problem with what you say above, but we should treat all  
contributions the same way, and a contribution from the Incubator is  
the same as from outside, is it not?  Whatever process we require of  
individuals to get commit status is the same?

I'm actually happy if your answers are "no" and "no" as long as we  
clearly define our process.

> Note:  I perceive both of these code bases as special cases and not  
> precedents.  The console is specific to Geronimo and really doesn't  
> work without it, so it belongs in Geronimo.

Well, these are precedents to see how we bring code in (as more will  
be coming and yes, some of it will be very specific to Geronimo).   
Hypothetically, if TriFork offered their EJB container, then it - how  
OpenEJB works notwithstanding - is not a standalone project because  
the EJB spec can't be implemented legally outside of the full  
container, is therefore Geronimo specific, and belongs in Geronimo.

> The ORB supports a large specification without a (healthy) existing  
> Apache licensed open source version.  If there were an existing  
> apache licensed open source ORB, I would rather see the code  
> donated and worked into an exiting project.  Alternatively, the  
> group donating the code could start a new project outside Apache,  
> and develop a healthy community of it's own.  I do not think that  
> Geronimo should ever assist in undermining an existing (healthy)  
> open source project.

That's fine, but I don't think the donators wish to go this way at  
first, and I think that we're happy to accommodate them.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message