incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <>
Subject Re: Cayenne ASF Proposal
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:14:20 GMT
On 2/28/06, Andrus Adamchik <> wrote:

> > IMO, this looks like a very worthwhile proposal, but I
> > would consider that this may likely be best under
> > db first, with movement to TLP sometime after that,
> > at least at this stage. I am also curious about the
> > comparison between this and Torque, and if you
> > have any thoughts about that, regarding any potential
> > impacts or conflicts within the ASF space.
> Can't compare us with Torque, as I am unfamiliar with it. From what I
> know we are closer to OJB and JDO rather than Torque (but I can be
> wrong on that). I don't see a conflict with either of the three. We
> just provide another way of doing object persistence, kind of like
> Struts, Tapestry and MyFaces provide three different ways to
> implement Java web layer.

the comments over in DBland seem quite positive:

We viewed DB as one logical possibility (so we first presented a
> proposal to DB PMC). But there are arguments from both Cayenne and DB
> communities that make us think that TLP is a better option:
> 1. Umbrella argument [that I don't fully understand; I guess it has
> something to do with the history of other TLPs?]

umbrella projects don't scale: communities fragment. too many layers, too
many rules required, too much management requried, not enough coding...

2. Cayenne is a mature community-based project that has demonstrated
> self-management abilities that we would like to preserve.

3. We have a number of subprojects that evolved around Cayenne core
> that are not about database interaction -  there is a Swing widget
> binding framework (and a GUI tool), there is an ability to do object
> persistence and distributed object management via web services (aka
> remote object persistence feature), etc. In other words Cayenne is
> not DB centric; what's common in all the features above is that all
> those are object [management|binding|persistence] services centered
> around a single object model.

subproject is sometimes just a little bit of a dirty word around here ;)

organising things into sub-projects (and sub-sub-projects) tends to fragment
communities and obscures legal oversight. flatter organisations scale
better. it's more important in the ASF as there's already a extra layer.

but having different products or components developed by the Cayenne
community shouldn't be a problem. the key is wanting to keep the community
together. this can be helped by sharing communal facilities (such as mailing
lists and having only one class of committer).

 - robert

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message