Hi Dennis: Discussion intertwined…
Cheers, Greg. On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2014, at 1113AM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi Dennis: >> >> I’ll bite twice: >> >> - Your offer to contribute Rio may have been before my time as a committer, >> because I don’t recall the discussion (mind you I’m also at a loss to recall >> what I had for dinner last night ;-). > > November 28th, 2013. Email thread entitled "River Container (was surrogate > container)". You responded asking questions about code provenance. Snippet > from the thread: > > I see it’s Apache licensed. Ideally we’d have a CCLA in place from all the > corporate contributors, but I personally don’t know if that’s required if the > contributed code is ASL2. We might have to consult more experienced Apache > people. > > Greg. > > I'd like to find out what would need to be done here. If anyone could help, > that would be great. I have no problems donating Rio to the River project. > River would get a mature project, with tons of real-world application of > River put into it. I think it would do River good, and also Rio. > If not part of the project I think River should at least reference it as a > notable project that can really speed developer adoption of River. > OK, let’s assume that you’re willing to contribute Rio, and that the River community is in favour. I’ll start a separate thread to discuss the steps. And we should go ahead and add a reference to Rio on the River site in the meantime. While we’re at it, any other projects that should be referenced? The “notable projects” idea is a very good one. > >> How was River unwelcoming, and do you feel the same situation exists now? > >> - Could you give a little detail on why you think container projects should >> be outside River? Is it just development stickiness, or something else? > > It's not container projects in general. It's projects that were never > accepted as *the* way to do something and now want to be included as defacto > support into River. I see no reason that your contribution should be > considered over more mature implementations at this point (Rio, Seven,...). I > think most importantly, there is no specification for "containers" to > implement, no requirements. The first thing to do would be to define what > these are, then contributed implementations can appear, and > developers/deployers choose what implementation to use. > OK, fair point. No specifications, I agree with. FWIW, the container I wrote uses the Service Starter conventions, which is why it’s able to use Reggie unmodified. The only thing added is the packaging into a single archive file. So, I hereby propose that we adopt a service archive packaging standard that looks like the one in the container (discussion will no doubt follow). To be clear, though, I’m not suggesting that river-container should be “the” way, just “a” way. And there was no small amount of real-world application experience that went into river-container. >> >> I’ll expand on why I think River needs a container desperately: Basically >> there is no way for a developer to use Jini or River as it stands. > > I agree with your statement above, just use Rio :) Can I at least get you to agree that there should be at least one container that’s part of the River project? Possibly more than one, that serve different targets? I recall that years ago, on Jini-users, John McClain commented that the Jini team didn’t want to sanction a single style of deploying services. While I suspect that logic still holds, it’s pretty clear to me that the core project needs to have at least “a” container. > >> For reasons that we’ve talked about endlessly, the Service Starter approach >> is unworkable (even without a potential race condition). That isn’t new - I >> remember when I started using Jini many years ago, I spent at least two days >> just bringing up Reggie. Then another two days getting a service running >> The “new-user” experience has been an issue since before we came to Apache. >> That’s why I wrote Harvester, that’s why Dennis created Rio, that’s why >> there were half a dozen containers created. >> In fact I suspect that every developer who’s ever used Jini did their own >> container implementation, in one form or another. > > I'm not sure this is the case at all. Some did yes, most took advantage of > what others had already written. > > Regards > > Dennis
