incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thomas Dudziak" <tom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Open JPA
Date Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:00:37 GMT
On 3/10/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@golux.com> wrote:

> Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> > Mhmm, I have one major problem with this (as much as with Cayenne),
> > and this is that IMO we (will) have too much ORM engines in Apache
> > (with JPA and Cayenne it will be 6 or 7 ?) with little to no
> > cooperation (esp. on the code level) between the ones already here. So
> > in short, there is no focus and much duplication. Not to mention that
> > OJB is planning to add EJB3 persistence (as it happens, done by me - I
> > was going to start in May).
>
> Well, Apache isn't about building things to fill industry
> niches -- it's about enabling developers to work on what
> they want and helping networks grow.  So I don't think that
> already having N similar packages should be a bar to adding
> an Nth+1 effort.
>
> Which may seem at first to be at odds with my position in
> the not-too-distant ServiceMix brouhaha -- but it really
> isn't.  I wasn't at all opposed to bringing in [another]
> BPE project, only to where it was originally slotted to land.
> Nor did I opine that it should be forcibly merged into one
> of the existing efforts; rather, that it should be an
> independent peer -- a competitor, if you like.

Actually, I was nowhere sugessting that the project should be refused
or merged with an existing one because there are already N projects of
that kind in Apache. Far from it - personally I welcome all these
projects whether competition or not.

The point that I tried to make (and perhaps failed to get across
properly) is that I fear that all these to some degree similar
projects will work separately. For instance, both Cayenne and OpenJPA
wanted to be sponsored by the Incubator PMC and go TLP immediately
even though there is already know-how in Apache in this field in the
DB project so that at least in my opinion, a sponsoring by the DB PMC
would be the more useful thing (whether the project then goes TLP
after graduation or not). And DB is not an umbrella in the Jakarta
sense but rather going towards a community (which I think is a good
thing).

However, the TLP status IMO currently makes it less likely that
cooperation (or at least communication) will happen, because it is
something of a 'we do our own thing' (this goes into the direction of
the umbrella thread). Personally I however think it is quite important
that we not only force community building within a podling but also
that they take part in Apache as a larger thing. For instance, if
another Servlet Container would like to join Apache, I would think it
a bit strange if they were sponsored by the Incubator PMC. And l would
expect the developers to communicate and cooperate with e.g. the
Tomcat folks, perhaps even share common code where there is no point
in competing (who needs two different JSP compilers in Apache ?)

cheers,
Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message