geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:50:57 GMT
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
>
>> All,
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If
> config is ready we can just let it be released.
>

So then are we in agreement, leave it as Geronimo Config and move forward
with it?  MP Config 1.1 is about to be released, so maybe we cut a release
right after that?

I spoke with David offline.  While he raised some concerns about using
XBean and that being where most of the common functionality lived, there's
some legacy issues with in XBean.  its a sub-project by itself.  Its not an
umbrella, so putting config within that would mean we have to release all
of XBean but releasing config separately makes sense. I confirmed with Mark
today.

So... let's continue to call it Geronimo Config for now.  We can address
later.


>
>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> 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 <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> > 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" <johndament@apache.org> 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 <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>> 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 <
>>> david.blevins@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > 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
>>> > > http://twitter.com/dblevins
>>> > > http://www.tomitribe.com
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message