Jeremy I agree with, and this current close relation to Geronimo delayed the development on OpenEJB, specially when the build of Geronimo is not going well as OpenEJB now required APIs from Geronimo which I don't know why they don't separate it as a common JEE code which can be used into either Geronimo or OpenEJB or any other JEE related stuff.
Thanks and best regards...
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 Sisson < email@example.com
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 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.
> 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* <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>> 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