geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?
Date Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:05:00 GMT

So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?

I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is some
of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a
revitalization effort to restore the name.

The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so
keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is
pretty cool IMHO.

I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:

- Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece (I
guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
- Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just
finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.
- Migrate Config to another PMC.
- Start a new PMC/project just for config.

Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?


On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg <> wrote:

> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
> the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply
> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original
> arguments again:
> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead
> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.
> There are a few things I want to ensure:
> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs
> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of
> projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever
> we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the
> o.a.geronimo groupId
> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common
> parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically
> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form
> an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently
> have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity
> because we exactly do NOT have such a place.
> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That
> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in
> dealing with TCKs and stuff.
> Now here is what might have been misunderstood:
> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in
> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to
> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the
> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or
> nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they
> both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names.
> Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the G
> server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best
> reputation. Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the
> Server and might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes
> a comeback. That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create
> if we name something Geronimo-bla.
> Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is
> connected with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was
> opposed to that proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as
> anybody else)
> I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF <<
> * really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE
> doesn't need
> * there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and
> TomEE is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those
> reusable components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
> * The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate
> lifecycle!
> In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the
> attic. I am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick
> the resins and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground.
> LieGrue,
> strub
> > Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
> >:
> >
> > I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
> >
> > Concretely there are 2 options:
> >
> > - keep G and promote the project with its new goal
> > - drop it and name it with something new
> >
> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
> the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> >
> > Wdyt?
> >
> > Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament" <> a écrit :
> > Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo
> itself to XBean?
> >
> > I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the
> coordinates to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg <> wrote:
> > Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle
> from the rest of xbean.
> > Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same
> version.
> > Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> > > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins <
> >:
> > >
> > > Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck
> with the app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names
> is usually an uphill battle.
> > >
> > > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.
> Open to other names as well.
> > >
> > > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have
> the same version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0
> would still be fine.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Blevins
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >

View raw message