geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Whitlock" <jcscoob...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:02:28 GMT
Hi all,
    I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as many of
the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years.  I am a big fan of
Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container for Geronimo,
things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users.  For example, a lot
of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo.  Most don't know that OpenEJB is a
standalone EJB container with more than 7 years under its belt.  While this
is a tragedy this is not the point I am wishing to make so lets continue.

    OpenEJB began life a long time ago.  When Geronimo came along, things
took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB.  Not only did the mainstream
development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer and nearly stop
but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about this feeling of
neglect.  Geronimo took the best developers from OpenEJB to build a better
version of OpenEJB but it only builds and runs inside of Geronimo.  This
again is a tragedy.  I could go on but I need to make a point.

    My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many devoted
developers.  It is not tied to Geronimo.  The fact that the version within
Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning problem and should not be
taken out on the OpenEJB developers.  Many of the developers, like myself,
would love to see the Apache Software Foundation open its doors to a mature
and well-known EJB container to call its own.  The concerns about OpenEJB
ties to Geronimo should not keep a great product from being sponsored at the
ASF.

Take care,

Jeremy

P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased.  ;)


On 7/4/06, John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
> Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> > separate from Geronimo.  Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
> > always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo.  However, it
> > is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
> > strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > Mohammed Nour wrote:
> >> Hi All...
> >>
> >> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> >> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> >> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> >> <mailto:david.blevins@visi.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> >>     Geronimo sub-project.  The incubator proposl is here:
> >>
> >>     http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> >>
> >>     Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> >>     during incubation
> >>
> >>     [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
> >>     as a
> >>     sub-project of Geronimo
> >>     [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> >>     [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> >>
> >>     +1 from me
> >>
> >>     --
> >>     David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message