geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Sutter <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:59:22 GMT
I've been on vacation, so this was an interesting conversation to come home
to...  :-)  I'm not a member of the Geronimo PMC, but I've been monitoring
the activity with Geronimo for years.  Thus, I have no "voting" capability,
but I do have an interest...

I like the analysis that Mark started with who is dependent on the various
parts of Geronimo -- specs, apis, impls.  We probably need to expand on
that to include external dependencies as well.  For example, David
mentioned that IBM is currently using the Yoko orb.  Not that it should
matter if an external entity has a dependency, but it might demonstrate
some potential community involvement.

I like the idea of an "ee-commons" type of project to contain the pieces of
Geronimo that are currently in use by other projects.  I suppose another
idea is to just move these common pieces of code to the respective
projects.  For example, move the JPA specs to OpenJPA.

I'm also surprised that TomEE isn't more active in this conversation.  I
would guess that they have several dependencies on various pieces of
Geronimo.  I suppose that's another idea -- maybe the common pieces of code
could be moved to TomEE?  Not trying to dump on that project, but they
might be the most active project using these pieces.

Just my two cents worth...
Kevin

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:

> Hi Alan!
>
> There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo.
>
> I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the ASF.
> There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some time.
> But that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same people
> in most of those projects anyway.
> So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve this
> problem. Geronimo could probably become this project.
>
> There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. And
> there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the
> classical EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity.
> That + the already existing components could be a great chance.
>
> As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is over.
> But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the single
> parts is still valid and often unbeaten.
> But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those
> technology libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the
> focus on maintaining the components and not the server could be really
> appreciated by the community.
>
> You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, and
> even more I see a need for those parts.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>:
> >
> > After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond
> without trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your
> efforts; thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply.  :)
> >
> > Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified to
> the ASF board.  We will need to explain what will be different and justify
> how it will generate sustainable community activity.  With regards to that,
> I have two general concerns:
> >       • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable
> community activity?
> >       • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent
> activity that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other
> projects to provide the appearance of activity?
> > The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream
> dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low.  Being an upstream
> “aggregator” does not provide appreciable added value at the cost of the
> doubled administration.  The specter of duplicate work will, in reality,
> never arise; this de facto efficiency is due to the awesomeness of the ASL
> 2.0 license.  The case for being an aggregator weakens even more given the
> fact that there just isn't a lot of work involved in maintaining specs.
> >
> > Things aren’t much better for the shared sub-systems.  If there was
> something compelling that needed to be done on the shared sub-systems, it
> would have been begun already; given the industry’s penchant for greenfield
> development (NIH) I doubt they will ever be revamped.
> >
> > This is why I went on my “need” soapbox.  Some new need must be found
> for Geronimo to provide.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 9, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have quite a hard time to understand why it is an issue having a
> project led by the aggregation of others and not by itself? Assume one sec
> we close Geronimo or it doesnt exist, then we'll move the bit of code in
> one of the project - let say tomee - and tomee will becomes the exact same
> kind of project. The alternative is to split in a lot of small projects but
> as mentionned a lot of overlap is in these projects in term of forces and
> it doesn't work really better, it just multiply the work load for each
> contributor. That's why I think G is not a bad solution as it is today.
> Scope surely needs to be refined like Mark started to do and objectives are
> clearly a bit different than a project pushing its own server/solution but
> I think there is a space for it and for Apache I think it is saner this way.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >>
> >> 2017-03-09 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alan Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>:
> >> It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a
> vibrant OSS project.  The product and community spring forth from that.
> Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result
> in success.  Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits
> people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the
> existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they
> not fulfilling?”
> >>
> >> That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be interested
> in this project?”
> >>
> >> That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is now
> focused on fulfilling a new need, X”.
> >>
> >> What unfulfilled need is out there?
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I totally agree.
> >>>
> >>> But interest from the community is always a product of a good product
> and feature roadmap.
> >>> Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable
> community around it.
> >>>
> >>> Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a
> good product. But without product there is no community.
> >>> At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but
> because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the
> people are great ;)
> >>>
> >>> So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of
> interest.
> >>> The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest
> in those features or whether we could move then to another community.
> Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages.
> Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users.
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or
> whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and
> is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.
> >>>>
> >>>> My 2 cents,
> >>>> --Alex
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> >>>> Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which
> components are used by other projects.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/
> asf/geronimo/
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
> >>>>        • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
> >>>>        • Meecrowave (txmgr)
> >>>>        • Aries (txmgr)
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/
> geronimo-schema-javaee_6
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
> >>>>        • Maven parents for geronimo-specs
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
> >>>>        • TomEE as delivery
> >>>>        • Lot of standalone
> >>>>        • -> we can ask Hendrik pby
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
> >>>>        • TomEE
> >>>>        • OpenWebBeans
> >>>>        • Meecrowave
> >>>>        • OpenJPA
> >>>>        • Johnzon
> >>>>        • BatchEE
> >>>>        • Karaf
> >>>>        • Aries
> >>>>        • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to
use
> some official javax jars due to licensing concerns
> >>>>
> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
> >>>>        • TomEE
> >>>>        • OpenWebBeans
> >>>>        • Meecrowave
> >>>>        • Aries
> >>>>        • Karaf
> >>>>        • OpenJPA
> >>>>        • CXF (supported)
> >>>>
> >>>> Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or
> servicemix.
> >>>> Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something
> and I'll share it.
> >>>>
> >>>> David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this
> inside the geronimo-server probably?
> >>>> Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just
> inside geronimo?
> >>>>
> >>>> txs and LieGrue,
> >>>> strub
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <
> david.a.jencks@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps
> it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other
> projects? Off the top of my head….
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction
> manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no
> one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster
> than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably
> be rewritten to be much faster.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use
> xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets
> xbean-blueprint to work:-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about
> CORBA and start contributing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any other bits being used?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough
> interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough
> interest and some days not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed
> bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks
> >>>>> david jencks
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However
> elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C
> so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the
> worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now
> seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of
> communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It
> allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of
> knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead
> of G would mean fork per project probably).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >>>>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE
Factory
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>:
> >>>>>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For
me, JEE
> is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the
> project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community
> decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my
> observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little
> activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s
> speed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Matt Hogstrom
> >>>>>> matt@hogstrom.org
> >>>>>> +1-919-656-0564
> >>>>>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
> >>>>>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
> >>>>>> -  Hogstrom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <jdillon@apache.org>
wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (struberg@yahoo.de)
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more
energy
> into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
> >>>>>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare
that the
> project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to
> keep the project going.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own
words I
> think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a
> while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I
> don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if
they are
> still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list
> for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an
analysis of
> where we are right now.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What about starting look into
> >>>>>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo
as a
> ee-commons project?
> >>>>>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days
of
> communication about this.  But we’ll see.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> —jason
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared
interest
> and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance
> that this is gonna happening?
> >>>>>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested
in
> putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise,
though I
> do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to
> re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> —jason
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>> -- Alex
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message