geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: Project Dependencies: TranQL & maybe someday
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:07:35 GMT

On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

>     Changing the subject since we're drifting again.  This is related
> to another issue that's come up off-list, but we may as well open  
> it to a
> broader discussion here.

Please note that I'm not defending TranQL (or Jeremy in his debate  
with you about a TranQL patch) here, but interested in the subject in  
general because I've long worried about our model of significant  
fundamental technology being external to the project.  I don't think  
it's bad - I've just worried about it for all sorts of reasons  
including community issues and IP issues.

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> TranQL is a Codehaus project so it is down to the despots,  
>> currently me.
>> The barrier to entry is not high but so far I've not seen anything
>> except that problematic patch.
>     Okay.  Well, without getting into specifics, I'm not real
> comfortable with Geronimo being heavily dependent on a Codehaus  
> project
> with precisely one, er, despot.  I feel the same about the
> kernel, which while not currently a part of Geronimo, will likely be a
> candidate for it (and this of course is one of the issues around it).

Using that criterion, you should feel the same about :

OpenEJB - codehaus project with one despot, David Blevins
TranQL - codehaus project with one despot, Jeremy
ActiveMQ - codehaus project with one despot, James (ok, there's also  
Stewie, but he's been inactive...)
Xfire - ....
et al

and additionally

ActiveIO - 3 despots...

>     Jeremy, would you consider either substantially enlarging the
> community of despots for TranQL, bringing it to Apache, or merging
> it into OpenEJB?

To TranQL's credit, it's added more committers (it has 10 total) over  
the last year than Geronimo has, which is more than half of OpenEJBs  
number, and has much smaller scope.

So instead of focusing on specific projects (I know that you are  
having a debate w/ Jeremy about a patch you offered, and I'm not  
trying to discount that but stick to the subject at hand) what about  
focusing on risk and how we mitigate such risk?  I see

* community risk
* technology risk
* IP risk

I don't believe we have tech or IP risk now at the moment.  But it's  
been a subject I've been pondering a lot because of Harmony - if it's  
appropriate to use the same model of a "cloud" of associated but  
independent projects given the IP stakes are so high.  Actually, I  
don't think that the IP stakes are higher at Harmony, but rather we  
tend not to focus on them so much.  I'd like to fix that here, but  
that's for another thread.

>     Dain, would you consider either substantially enlarging the
> community of despots for, bringing it to Apache, or  
> merging it
> into Geronimo (as a branch or sandbox module for the present, I  
> presume)?

I think that the code should be brought to the project here.  Dain  
has every right to do this kind of work here in a sandbox or branch.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message