Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components 
are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
        • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
        • Meecrowave (txmgr)
        • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
        • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
        • TomEE as delivery
        • Lot of standalone
        • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • OpenJPA
        • Johnzon
        • BatchEE
        • Karaf
        • Aries
        • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some 
official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • Aries
        • Karaf
        • OpenJPA
        • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll 
share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the 
geronimo-server probably? 
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside 
geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[email protected]>:
> 
> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would 
> be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the 
> top of my head….
> 
> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
> 
> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I 
> don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my 
> jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning 
> rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to 
> be much faster.
> 
> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring? 
>  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to 
> work:-)
> 
> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and 
> start contributing.
> 
> Any other bits being used?
> 
> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest 
> to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest 
> and some days not.
> 
> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits 
> (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere 
>> is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so 
>> shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the 
>> worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now 
>> seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of 
>> communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It 
>> allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of 
>> knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead 
>> of G would mean fork per project probably).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>> 
>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[email protected]>:
>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not 
>> my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project 
>> apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and 
>> posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>> 
>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is 
>> that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If 
>> those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>> 
>> Matt Hogstrom
>> [email protected]
>> +1-919-656-0564
>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
>> 
>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
>> -  Hogstrom
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([email protected]) wrote:
>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this 
>>>> project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is 
>>>> dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the 
>>>> project going. 
>>> 
>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the 
>>> project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  
>>> I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t 
>>> think its enough to leave on its own.
>>> 
>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still 
>>> monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC 
>>> folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>>> 
>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we 
>>>> are right now. 
>>>> 
>>>> What about starting look into 
>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons 
>>>> project? 
>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication 
>>> about this.  But we’ll see.
>>> 
>>> —jason
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and 
>>>> might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that 
>>>> this is gonna happening? 
>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any 
>>> love in to any of what is presently here.
>>> 
>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do 
>>> recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to 
>>> re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>>> 
>>> —jason
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to