Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB,
> ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo
> community.
Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a
number of those projects at the ASF.
> The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular
> server architecture based on a single core.
No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you
going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having
access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large,
single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the
project?
THAT is a TLP.
> each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone
> (basically the core with one plugin installed).
Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point.
What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I
just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff,
too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have
been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB.
Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other
non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code
that was apparently separable earlier?
> end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some
> unknown apache rules.
I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as
TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not
an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as
to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put
forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer?
:)
--- Noel
