Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78558 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2006 03:02:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Jul 2006 03:02:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 22546 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2006 03:02:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 22498 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2006 03:02:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 22483 invoked by uid 99); 5 Jul 2006 03:02:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:02:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jcscoobyrs@gmail.com designates 64.233.162.198 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.162.198] (HELO nz-out-0102.google.com) (64.233.162.198) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:02:49 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id 40so1114824nzk for ; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:02:28 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=iz2bsQfNzs3230OEJlfS6sYg1UkjTyCYnnK29afhgRoDNv3eiNNOUbeSLo5PeRJU9t6yJY9pCk36A0x0k5YFZCuGnq6JmS1/MUaUftE2XM2HOMJHVdoFTbfhxraFuXA58u9lLrD7CUKEaYpitArbHDdPDRrHyYfXTlT33/CWHc8= Received: by 10.36.140.3 with SMTP id n3mr5624540nzd; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.120.13 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:02:28 -0600 From: "Jeremy Whitlock" To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo In-Reply-To: <44AB05BD.7010107@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_14283_9130670.1152068548680" References: <0128DA23-916A-48A6-8C61-3180A2E6D695@visi.com> <44A8165B.4000904@toolazydogs.com> <44AB05BD.7010107@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_14283_9130670.1152068548680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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 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* >> > 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------=_Part_14283_9130670.1152068548680 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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
>>
>>
>>
>


------=_Part_14283_9130670.1152068548680--