hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: TLP proposal draft
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:50:38 GMT

On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 15:30 +0100, Erik Abele wrote:
> On 28.10.2007, at 19:38, Roland Weber wrote:
> > Erik Abele wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not so sure about the 4th parapgraph: the first part is implicit
> >> anyway (adoption), the second part is fine but sounds a bit strange -
> >> dunno, I guess the board will have questions here, but it probably  
> >> isn't
> >> a show-stopper, so best is to leave it as it is and wait on  
> >> feedback...
> >
> > How about this:
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache !HttpComponents Project will not create new
> > applications, but only '''adopt existing efforts''' at Apache to  
> > develop
> > applications based on the components and wishing to join the Apache
> > !HttpComponents Project, '''excluding''' efforts to implement
> > '''standardized server-side containers''' such as a Servlet or Portlet
> > container; and be it further
> I really don't think that all this is necessary. It feels *very*  
> strange when looking at all the other TLPs.
> The more I think about it, the more awkward it becomes, sorry :-)
> Quoting the Incubator site:
> "A good resolution is neither too narrow nor too broad. If the  
> project's scope is too narrow, then its activities will be  
> unnecessarily constrained. If a project's scope is too broad then it  
> may lack focus and suffer from governance issues."
> I think that falls more into the former category - it certainly isn't  
> too broad without this paragraph.
> (Compare with the MINA proposal [1]; they talked about "networked  
> applications" which could be anything but they're getting along  
> pretty good with it...)
> > The "excluding..."
> > stuff is not really necessary, but I'd leave it in as a courtesy to
> > the folks who had concerns about the creation of the HttpComponents
> > subproject at the time.
> As said, that doesn't make any sense to me - these concerns are moot  
> IMHO, maybe a relict of Jakarta... We shouldn't let the outside  
> dictate our effort - it's not that we would plan anything like that  
> so what?
> > This explicit restriction should not only help to shape our scope,
> > but also protects us from questions like "you promised us  
> > applications,
> > where are they?" ;-)
> Hmm, nobody promises anything - who would care?
> I really think we're making an elephant out of a mouse here - the  
> scope is pretty much defined with "a toolset of low level Java  
> components focused on HTTP and associated protocols, and of  
> applications based on these components".

The squabble with some of the Tomcat was pretty unpleasant but I also
think it is no longer relevant. ASF now hosts projects that directly
complete with one another. We do not have any hidden agenda to get into
the Servlet business but anyhow there is no point in making special
reverences towards Tomcat. We are directly competing with MINA's
AsyncWeb. So what? There is nothing makes Tomcat special these days.

> I don't see any need to further define this with explicit restrictions.
> So, to sum up: I'd simply remove that paragraph and submit the  
> proposal for the 14 Nov board meeting - if accepted this gives enough  
> time to get the infrastructure going (plan on some weeks for that),  
> write the bylaws, move the site and other resources etc. etc... (I'm  
> happy to help with all that).

+1 to that.



> Cheers,
> Erik
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/ 
> board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpcomponents-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message