These seem to be good points to me.
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
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.
P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
On 7/4/06, John
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
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
> always concerned about its close association w/
Geronimo. However, it
> is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling
> strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> Mohammed Nour wrote:
>> Hi All...
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
>> 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* <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of
>> during incubation
>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during
>> as a
>> sub-project of Geronimo
>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>> +1 from me