river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Brouwer <mark.brou...@cheiron.org>
Subject Re: Apache River Roadmap
Date Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:54:32 GMT
I'll try keep it short so I skip many things I could have reacted on but
likely wouldn't add anything new.

Dan Creswell wrote:

> Why would I bother to put a spec into River?  If River is going to be
> this small in focus, I'll develop services and API's elsewhere without
> bothering to do specifications.

I think you confuse specification with standard. To me an API of such as
service is the specification and I see value in people collaborating to
specify and implement such a service as part of River. As I already
said. I see no problem in people collaborating to get something done
here, but they can also do it somewhere else.

> Boring == few developers == project that doesn't need to be at Apache
> with high visibility and might as well sit on SourceForge in a dark corner.

The Apache Software Foundation:

  - provide a foundation for open, collaborative software development
    projects by supplying hardware, communication, and business
    infrastructure
  - create an independent legal entity to which companies and individuals
    can donate resources and be assured that those resources will be used
    for the public benefit
  - provide a means for individual volunteers to be sheltered from legal
    suits directed at the Foundation's projects

SourceForge:

  - provides hardware, communication, and business infrastructure

So I think there are plenty of reasons why you want to do even 'boring'
work that needs to be done here opposed to as in a dark corner at
SourceForge.

> It might be successful to you but IMHO, having such a thing so visible
> at Apache will be a PR disaster:
> 
> "Some quiet little project at Apache that no-one's interested in, that
> has a couple of committers tinkering away on little things that no-one
> appears to care about.  Wow, is that all there is to Jini?"

In my story I talked about a project that provided the foundation for a
lot of other exiting projects, so that means a lot of people indirectly
care about this project. I think not that many people download just the
Linux kernel and then say "wow that is useful".

Also I refuse to let my need for features I require be based on how the
outside world thinks of it. I can only hope it will be appreciated but
that is not my main motivation for contributing here.

I believe there is room for things that Sean's Joe the programmer will
directly comprehend and thinks this is great, as well as for things that
makes sure that Joe the programmer won't hit the wall at some point in
time because somebody already thought of that. There is always room for
people that don't get all the attention but for which you can only hope
they are there and I hope these kind of people will also be appreciated
here too.

> The kinds of minutae (e.g. PreferredClassLoader changes) we've talked
> about thus far will not address any of these problems.  If River is not

I would appreciate it if you stop labeling these discussions as being
about minutiae. The last thing we need IMHO is people backing of
discussion about code because it might not fit someones definition of
relevance.

> If what you describe is the destiny of River as a user and committer, I
> see minimal value in what the project will be doing.  I might as well
> take a simple snapshot of the source code and then evolve it and package
> it independently in a direction I find more useful to customers/users
> whilst avoiding the need for endless debate with people that want a
> small quiet project that does little.  I'd also be crossing my fingers
> that I can attract attention away from River to avoid the PR disaster I
> mention above.  Kind of sounds like the behaviour of a number of
> commercial Jini efforts out there using but preferring not to talk about
> Jini, why?

I think we should prevent we get some mindset there is a group of people
that wants to make Jini irrelevant and that there is a group that wants
to make it relevant and that are obstructed by the first group.

Maybe it turns out that in the end our differences all boil down to our
way with words, there is nothing so inaccurate as natural language
especially when spoken by people from different countries and different
personalities.

 From what you have said so far I can only conclude you have some ideas
how Apache River can make Jini more relevant, maybe this is a good
moment to talk about those ideas.

Maybe it turns out your ideas for the roadmap align nicely with the
ideas of others, so we can all work happily together hand in hand!
-- 
Mark

Mime
View raw message