On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 7:29 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: RE: [HiveMind] Roll call, please! > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Tim OBrien wrote: > > > > > What about moving HiveMind out of the Jakarta Commons? I > > know this is > > > a controversial suggestion, but here me out a little. > > > > There are two roles in Commons. One is incubation in > > Commons-Sandbox, the other is Commons projects that are being > > used in various Jakarta [Apache] projects. > > > > Hivemind is definitely using Commons for incubation I think. > > Looking at Howard's email, it even sounds like incubation, > > with the Hivemind community not being the Commons community. > > > > So ... you think I should only request other Jakarta Commons committers > to join the HiveMind project? I think that's too limiting. Depends how you define join. But no, in this section I wasn't suggesting only Commons should join, just that there's no reason to consider Hivemind an obvious choice for Commons currently. With what you say below about it being a component of Tapestry, I think it does fit the plan for Commons. Very similar to Jelly in component positioning [ie) Jelly's at the heart of Maven, Hivemind to be at the heart of Tapestry]. > > Nah. It's for the hivemind community and to a lesser extent > > the Commons community [and the PMC]. This is where the big > > issue comes in. Until Hivemind has community, or at least a > > driving Jakarta project, it's unlikely to become a Jakarta > > project or Commons proper. > > HiveMind "spawned" out of Tapestry, in that I took some of the cleverer > configuration ideas inside Tapestry and improved them to form HiveMind. > My goal is to bring HiveMind to a 1.0 and refactor Tapestry 3.1 to use > it heavily. In fact, that's one of the ways I've been guiding the > development path, pre-visualizing what Tapestry needs out of it in terms > of being able to override existing services and so forth. Cool. Commons projects are meant to come out of other Jakarta projects, so although it's a bit odd as you're doing a next-gen development fork using commons-sandbox, it will end up being a reusable component from the Tapestry crew. > > [Continuing in Howard's email] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Howard M. Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:03 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; 'David Solis'; Harish > > > Krishnaswamy; Essl Christian; Johan Lindquist; Andy > > Barnett; Bill Lear > > > Subject: [HiveMind] Roll call, please! > > > > > > Once we form up, we should be able to get everyone commit rights to > > > the hivemind CVS repository. > > > > Really? Without any patches/code? Unless they're already > > Jakarta (Apache?) committers, commit rights won't be > > immediately handed out [I reckon]. > > That's the point of incubation, isn't it? This is Incubator all over > again ... either we're limited to interested already-Jakarta committers > (such as Harish and Dave, from Tapestry) or we are in a catch-22 where > we can't build a community here. How is any project in the sandbox > supposed to get out of it? To me, it's much more presumptious for me to > say "I'm Mr. Tapestry, so promote my pet project" than it is to form a > real community around the code. By your reckonin' the only approach > available is to get a critical mass of existing commons committers > involved ... and frankly, HiveMind is a little cramped for that, I think > (6K loc, about 125 classes, plus tests). Partly this is my view, partly I'm just pointing at what the charter and previous instances imply. Hivemind should initially be created by Tapestry committers, who are happily handed Jakarta Commons privileges to work on it. Two groups then join in. Either existing Commons [ie) other Jakarta projects, or even Apache now] get interested and [with etiquette] join in, or contributors appear with patches who after a period of activity [to gain buy-in] are voted to committership. The charter doesn't really seem to consider the latter type of ASF committer. I think the original intent may have been that they should have become Tapestry committers and not Commons committers, but that's not how things have happened. Hopefully you'll get interest from 2 other people in the ASF, who can be given committership if need be and assist in patches from constributors. Other core Tapestry committers really ought to be committing on it as it becomes more central to Tapestry I suspect. > > > I feel the base framework is pretty much ready to head > > towards a 1.0 > > > release; initial work will be documentation and (even better) unit > > > tests, plus creating additional modules as outlined on my blog. > > > Of course, the whole point is we discuss, as a group, what > > should get done! > > > > I applaud the honest of admitting that is currently a > > benevolent-dictator driven project. Poor PR though I suspect. :) > > It's worked for me in the past; I believe that you develop an idea as a > focused group to the point where it has some life. HiveMind is at that > point, the code and design is feeding on itself quite nicely. That's a > reflection of a single view and focus that wouldn't, I think, be > possible out of the ether. In fact, the design has changed considerably > from where I started with it based on feedback from within WebCT and > from several of the people I've extended an invitation to. Agreed. I think that despite the Apache 'community' Way, the strongest proejcts come from 1 person [or a tight group]. Of course, then the community way steps in, it's rewritten, and v3.0 is a diamond. > time. The point is, my insticts say HiveMind can flourish with more > input, now. No argument. Trying to keep things on the 'Commons way' *whince*. > > Other questions: > > > > So how is Hivemind different to Avalon? It seems like it must > > clash with the Avalon kernel or something. Not that I grokk > > either project. > > > > I'm going to be answering that question quite a bit. FAQ FAQ! :) > Short form: HiveMind combines a powerful services model with a > sophisticated, distributed configuration mechanism based on XML. It > allows complex, service-oriented architectures to be assembled with > minimal code and simple XML descriptors. > > Long form: [I promise I read this :) ]. I tend to view things like Hivemind, Avalon etc as Religion [aka Frameworks] and am still messing with bespoke frameworks [log parsing, web scraping, code generating] to have good ideas on the world of services and generic frameworks. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
