river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: New Chair for Apache River PMC
Date Tue, 13 May 2014 12:31:23 GMT
----- Original message -----
> I think also need to decide if qa_refactor does become defacto 3.0, do we
> do the following:
> 
> Change the com.sun.jini namespace to org.apache.river

I'd like to suggest org.apache.river.impl, so it doesn't stomp all over new api.

> Change the com.artima namespace to org.apache.river

Perhaps  org.apache.river.artima given that it was quite an achievement at the time.

> Move to a Maven project and decide on module group and artifact ids

Or at least a Maven compatible structure.  Any ideas what to do with jsk-policy?  Given that
this is installed into the ext directory, or into a directory defined as an extension directory,
it is loaded by the extension classloader.  It contains classes that are duplicated by jsk-platform,
considering it's place in the ClassLoader hierarchy, shouldn't jsk-platform depend on jsk-policy?

Regards,

Peter.

> 
> Regards
> 
> Dennis
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Bryan Thompson <bryan@systap.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why don't we do a pre-release from this branch?   Does apache support
> > this concept?   Give it some time in the wild to shake down the bugs?
> > 
> > If not. Let's just release it and document that there is a lot of
> > churn. Give it a 3.0 designation and be prepared to release a series
> > of updates as bugs are identified.   The key would be API stability so
> > people could try it and roll back as necessary for production
> > deployments onto a known good code base.
> > 
> > Bryan
> > 
> > > On May 13, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 13/05/2014 9:59 AM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
> > > > Apologies for not chiming in earlier, I've been running around
> > > > with my
> > air
> > > > on fire for the past couple of weeks. As to whether River is dead,
> > > > I
> > don't
> > > > think it is, maybe mostly dead (in which case a visit to Miracle
> > > > Max
> > may be
> > > > in order). I think River is static, but not dead. The technology
> > > > is so worth at least maintaining, fixing bugs and continued care
> > > > and feeding.
> > > > 
> > > > The issue to me is that the project has no direction, and River
> > > > has no community that participates and makes decisions as a
> > > > community. There
> > has
> > > > been tons of work in qa_refactor, is that the future for River? Or
> > > > is
> > it a
> > > > fork?
> > > 
> > > There are develpers who are concerned about the number of fixes made
> > > in
> > qa-refactor, but no one yet has identified an issue I haven't been
> > able to fix very quickly.   In any case the public api and serial form
> > is backward compatible.
> > > 
> > > I encourage the community to test it, find out for themselves and
> > > report
> > any issues.
> > > 
> > > > Regards
> > > > 
> > > > Dennis
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Greg
> > > > > Trasuk<trasukg@stratuscom.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On May 11, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Peter<jini@zeus.net.au> 
 wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ultimately, if community involvement continues to decline, we
> > > > > > may have
> > > > > to send River to the attic.
> > > > > > Distributed computing is difficult and we often bump into the
> > > > > shortcomings of the java platform, I think these difficulties
> > > > > are why developers have trouble agreeing on solutions.
> > > > > > But I think more importantly we need increased user
> > > > > > involvement.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is there any advise or resources we can draw on from other
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > projects?
> > > > > It may be, ultimately, that the community has failed and River is
> > headed
> > > > > to the Attic.   The usual question is “Can the project round up
> > > > > the 3
> > ‘+1’
> > > > > votes required to make an Apache release?”   Historically, we
> > > > > have been
> > able
> > > > > to do that, at least for maintenance releases, and I don’t see
> > > > > that changing, at least for a while.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The problem is future development and the ongoing health of the
> > project.
> > > > > On this point, we don’t seem to have consensus on where we want
> > > > > the project to go, and there’s limited enthusiasm for
> > > > > user-focused requirements.   Also, my calls to discuss the health
> > > > > of the project
> > have had
> > > > > no response (well, there was a tangent about the build system,
> > > > > but personally I think that misses the point).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I will include in the board report the fact that no-one has
> > > > > expressed
> > an
> > > > > interest in taking over as PMC chair, and ask if there are any
> > > > > other
> > expert
> > > > > resources that can help.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Greg Trasuk.
> > > 
> > 


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