geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: Questions about site
Date Mon, 01 May 2006 19:27:43 GMT
I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion?  Please,
let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion.  Can you
describe your position?

I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site.  But my understanding of the
Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.  To be as inclusive as
possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
primary plugin repository needs to be separate.  We really want to
offer our users the best of all available plugins.

Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
code.  The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. 
However, the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.

And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
to Geronimo.  I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
features or distribution model.


On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
> I do not agree.  I do not think that we should have any sites that are
> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default.  I do admit that
> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
> matter further.
> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
> Regards,
> Alan
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically.  The
> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> > wants to setup a site they can.  All I see us deciding is what sites
> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <> wrote:
> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the site
> >>>> as a
> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
> >>>> This was introduced in
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a few questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list?  I
> >>>> haven't
> >>>> been able to find much at all.
> >>>
> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
> >>> at TSSJS and so on.  Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> >>> the vision and goals writeup.  I need to do a better job of describing
> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> >>> some walkthroughs and so on.  But I'll send out some documentation on
> >>> it later today.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> >> community forums.  This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
> >>
> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >>>
> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >>>
> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >>>
> >>> No.  Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever.  We really need a central site
> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The hosting location is an issue.  I think this needs discussion and if
> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate.  I
> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> >> personal site.  We need consensus on this.
> >>
> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
> >>>
> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> >>> Geronimo SVN tree.  To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built.  However, as new
> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> >>> source is at Apache.
> >>>
> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site.  It's not open
> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> >>> to work on the site.  And the web site really isn't the important part
> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
> >>
> >> This gets a -1 from me.  Any links off our portal should pass muster
> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> >> (Codehaus/SF/, etc).  If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
> >> with great dismay.  The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
> >> has gone about is not community focused.
> >>
> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> >> implementing it.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >

View raw message