geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
Date Fri, 08 Sep 2017 21:23:40 GMT
This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion.
Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression.
But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way!

Why should we try to block anyone else from creating reusable components?

What you might mean is that quite a few people gave you the feedback that a reusable components
project which would get hosted in the TomEE project should get a specific different name and
should _not_ get named TomEE. Just to upfront avoid the same confusion which you critisise
in Geronimo. With the exception that the Geronimo AppServer is dead, but TomEE is gladly still
well alive and so even more likely to cause confusion!
And nothing happened for a month after we gave this feedback. Btw I gave this feedback in
my function as TomEE member and without any hidden agenda.

> Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you attempting to
move forward elsewhere”

We do have existing code in geronimo. Used all over the place in other projects. There is
now no confusion anymore as the G server is dead. So what would moving those existing projects
to TomEE add for all those projects?


> Am 08.09.2017 um 23:10 schrieb David Blevins <>:
> Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page.
>> On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins <> wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg <> wrote:
>>> +1 for going forward
>>> Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public perception
about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the G-Server.
>>> To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part and
move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java Components. And of course
if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the
EOL state of GServer.
>>> @David, is that fine for you?
>> I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled.  The “is this ok with you”
sent 5 minutes after the vote already started.  Vote closed sharply at 72 hours almost to
the minute.  I was home in WI on labor day weekend visiting family for the first time in 2
>> I'm a bit confused.  Which vote are you referring to?  The decision to retire Geronimo
Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight forward, were you saying we shouldn't
have retired it?
> I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if you don’t
agree.  I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s understanding.
> Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third.
>  1. Retire Geronimo Server.  This is an easy +1 for me.  We should have been clear with
users and done that years ago.
>  2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”.  I’m +0 on that.  Having battled to change the
perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and not excited to repeat that
over the next 5 years attempting to convince people “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore.
 I understand others are up for the challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud
the spirit, so +0 rather than -0.  It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to start
new projects here for the reasons stated.  Despite not having it in me to push heavily for
a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and want nothing but the best.  It is, after
all, a major part of my life and history and more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing.
>  3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”.  I’m -1
on that.  Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing yield and stop signs being
thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to create reusable EE components.  The vote or discussions
here being used to more or less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other
project should be allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting Apache.
 Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you attempting to move
forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 times over the last 2 months, even before
a vote.
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I would specifically like the words “we agreed”
to be avoided on #3.  Per letter of the law, this was not explicitly voted on and even if
it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC does not translate to other PMCs.  In spirit, I would
really like the same support shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE
Commons.  If you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, please extend the same
"I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit” and "more strong Apache projects
is never a bad thing” mentality.
> For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear?  Not trying to convince anyone as I understand
everyone has their own perspective and vision.  I just want to make sure I’m communicating
clearly as there are signs I am not.
> -David

View raw message