geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Project Dependencies: TranQL & maybe someday
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:27:45 GMT
+1    I think you better stated what I was trying to get at.


On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 wrote:
> I was just thinking about the issues of external project dependencies in 
> general.. Should there be a process for evaluating the introduction of new 
> 'critical' dependencies in Geronimo. 
> I think we should at least ensure that a 'critical' external project meets 
> a minimum criteria, for example:
> * An operational web site and documentation that describes the dependency 
> (more than just a paragraph).
> * Operational mailing lists and mail archives
> * Operational bug tracking system
> * More than one Geronimo committer on the project
> Currently some of the projects being discussed in this thread do not meet 
> the 'example' criteria above.  Just picture yourself as a new Geronimo 
> developer wanting to get involved.  Go to these project websites and try 
> looking at the mailing list archives and see how much information you can 
> find about the project.
> What would be the impact to the Geronimo community if a critical project 
> initially met this criterial then stops meeting the 'example' criteria?
> Have we identified the risks of depending on 'critical' external projects. 
>  I'm not saying we shouldn't rely upon them, but at least think about the 
> risks and how they can be minimised.  For example is it safe to rely upon 
> these assumptions?:
> * that the project host will always be operating
> * that the project host will backup the project source (mistakes can 
> happen) and that we will always have access to the source.
> * that mailing list archives for the project kept by the hosting project 
> will always be available.
> * that the bug tracking records for the project will always be available
> If Geronimo is integrating best of breed external components, then IMHO, 
> the project infrastructure and community around those components should be 
> well established.
> John
> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential, 
> proprietary or non-public information.  This information is intended 
> solely for the designated recipient(s).  If an addressing or transmission 
> error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately 
> and destroy this e-mail.  Any review, dissemination, use or reliance upon 
> this information by unintended recipients is prohibited.  Any opinions 
> expressed in this e-mail are those of the author personally.
> Aaron Mulder <> wrote on 06/07/2005 09:08:13 
> AM:
> >    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.
> > 
> > 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).
> > 
> >    Jeremy, would you consider either substantially enlarging the 
> > community of despots for TranQL, bringing it to Apache, or merging 
> > it into OpenEJB?
> > 
> >    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)?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron

View raw message