geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:49:05 GMT

On Mar 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
>> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
>> community.
> Consolidating the community is a good thing.  I've long wanted to  
> see a
> number of those projects at the ASF.
>> The vision was to have a single community focused on building a  
>> modular
>> server architecture based on a single core.
> No disagreement.  The question at hand is simple and specific.  Are  
> you
> going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone  
> having
> access to work on every piece of code?  Are you going to have a large,
> single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every  
> aspect of the
> project?
> THAT is a TLP.

Yes, that is exactly what we are talking about.

>> each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone
>> (basically the core with one plugin installed).
> Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the  
> last point.
> What is the core?  If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB,  
> or I
> just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo  
> stuff,
> too?  From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if  
> there have
> been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with  
> OpenEJB.
> Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other
> non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get  
> the code
> that was apparently separable earlier?

The problem is not sharing a single core, it is that the core we  
have, GBean, is too intrusive.  XBean was designed to not be intrusive.

>> end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
>> unknown apache rules.
> I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better  
> off as
> TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo.  From what I am being told,  
> that is not
> an uncommon view within those communities, although there are  
> questions as
> to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo.  Perhaps that ought  
> to be put
> forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly  
> answer?
> :)

I think you are starting to see the responses. :)


View raw message