river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tom Hobbs" <tom.ho...@sucden.co.uk>
Subject RE: River-261, namespace change
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:05:29 GMT
Hi all,

It's my feeling that the namespace change should be deferred until after
AR2.  Not being sure, but working on the assumption that, AR2 is near to
being ready it makes sense to tie up the last few bits and get it
released.

Although the namespace change, at a superficial level, feels like a
simple change; given Jim's example from the IiopExporter, there are
probably more than a few places where we might get tripped up.  Or maybe
I'm just projecting my own fallibility... :-)

I would suggest releasing AR2 without it, but then releasing AR2.5
quickly afterwards.  This can be considered a rebranding exercise which
we could tie back to some of Niclas' points in his "Future of
Jini/River" post.  

So this would include things like;

- River-261, namespace change
- Reconciliation of the "million documents, a couple of sites, dozens of
related projects"
- Move to Maven (which I'm personally not in favour of, but if it aids
adoption...)
- Make the build/test cycle much easier and complete for newly
downloaded sources
- Invention of some intelligent-defaults to make the black-box install
more simple for the general case
- Invention of some "lofty goals" for where the project is going and
what it should do rather than a series of non-show stopping bug fixes

We should be pushing for graduation harder so the technology starts to
get known as "Apache River", rather than "The project formally known as
Jini".  But again, if AR2 is almost ready to go, then I don't think we
should delay it for this.

I know I've not been involved much or for long, but this is my two pence
worth.

Hopefully this makes sense.  

Cheers,

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Reedy [mailto:dennis.reedy@gmail.com] 
Sent: 10 November 2008 13:07
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: River-261, namespace change

Hi Mark,

I can certainly identify with the points you make below. The problem  
with this type of change is determining when the right time to make it  
happen, is it sooner or is it later? IMHO, it almost starts to define  
River as River, as being a project on ASF, moving forward from it's  
past.

Sooner or later River will need this, and (for good or bad) not be a  
drop in replacement for the JTSK releases. Part of RIVER-261 may also  
include a simple utility to make the conversion as painless as  
possible [1]. This may also help, or at least make it less painful.

Let me know how you'd like to proceed, I have not done the conversion  
work on qatests yet, and will wait until this thread comes to a  
conclusion.

Dennis

1. I have found that using an ant replacefilter to usually do the job  
quite well here. Its simple and takes moments to modify all sources &  
configs in your project. So adapting to RIVER-261 should be rather  
straightforward

On Nov 10, 2008, at 240AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:

> Hi Dennis,
>
> Good to see you want to contribute, but personally I'm not that fond
> of this rather big change for AR2. There are some patches that have
> not been committed yet and that are subject to this change as well.
> There are some rather large changes to the codebase that I'm not going
> to get in before AR2 and that would be much harder to merge with the
> River codebase once RIVER-261 has been committed.
>
> I realize that RIVER-261 needs to be done before graduation, but
> personally I would prefer it to do it once we have proofed that we
> have   a community that can graduate. RIVER-261 doesn't bring added
> value to the codebase itself, although no doubt some will think
> differently, but
> will have a lot of consequences. At least going forward with RIVER-261
> at this stage would disconnect me completely with River given the
> limited time I have for the time being.
>
> People could utilize AR1 as drop in replacement for the JTSK releases,
> if RIVER-261 is part of AR2 it can't act as such when this is  
> committed.
>
> Curious to know how others feel about this ...
> -- 
> Mark Brouwer
>

www.sucden.co.uk
Sucden (UK) Limited, 5 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9SG
Telephone +44 20 7940 9400
 
Registered in England no. 1095841
VAT registration no. GB 446 9061 33
Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and entered in the FSA
register under no. 114239

This email, including any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be privileged.
It may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, please notify postmaster@sucden.co.uk immediately and delete it
from your computer system.

We believe, but do not warrant, that this email and its attachments are virus-free, but you
should check. 

Sucden (UK) Ltd may monitor traffic data of both business and personal emails. By replying
to this email, you consent to Sucden’s monitoring the content of any emails you send to
or receive from Sucden. Sucden is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender where
this is a non-business email.
The contents of this e-mail do not constitute advice and should not be regarded as a recommendation
to buy, sell or otherwise deal with any particular investment.
This message has been scanned for viruses by Mimecast.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message