> Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the 
> project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.


Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply 
renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original 
arguments again:

All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead corpse 
lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.

There are a few things I want to ensure:

1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs part. 
If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of projects need to 
change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever we do, we should imo 
keep the specs at a single central place and keep the o.a.geronimo groupId

2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common parts, 
like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically everything 
which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form an own PMC. 
There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently have quite a lot 
smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity because we exactly do NOT 
have such a place.
I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That might 
make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in dealing with 
TCKs and stuff.

Now here is what might have been misunderstood:

3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in DIFFERNT 
PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to move parts of 
G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the active and still 
in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or nothing! And we also cannot 
move some parts to X and others to Y if they both use the o.a.geronimo groupId 
or package names.


Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the G 
server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best reputation. 
Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the Server and 
might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes a comeback. 
That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create if we name 
something Geronimo-bla.

Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is connected 
with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was opposed to that 
proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as anybody else)

I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF << 
* really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE doesn't need
* there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and TomEE 
is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those reusable 
components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
* The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate lifecycle!

In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the attic. I 
am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick the resins 
and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
> 
> I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
> 
> Concretely there are 2 options:
> 
> - keep G and promote the project with its new goal
> - drop it and name it with something new
> 
> Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the 
> project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> 
> Wdyt?
> 
> Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> a écrit :
> Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo itself 
> to XBean?  
> 
> I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates to 
> org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle from 
> the rest of xbean.
> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same 
> version.
> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with the 
> > app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is usually 
> > an uphill battle.
> >
> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open to 
> > other names as well.
> >
> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the 
> > same version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0 
> > would still be fine.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> 

Reply via email to