Yes, I gonna tackle this with a broader explanation.
Btw, I don't agree with the 2 weeks. If you would apply this rule to other
topics then TomEE8 would clearly not happen.
This is a discussion where everyone has a say and should be finished with
either a clear outcome or a standard vote if there are different opinions.
I'll copy over the arguments from the mail thread to the email@example.com
and firstname.lastname@example.org mailing lists from 2018-08-11.
The discussion span for over 2 months back then. And of course the focus back
then was about the 'future of Geronimo'.
Please note that I'll only copy my own words as this was a private conversation
and others need to copy their own words to public lists.
Again my argument:
*) There should be a go-to place for such reusable enterprise parts at Apache.
Like javamail, the tx-mgr, the specs, config, xbean, etc.
*) We should keep the o.a.geronimo.specs groupId (would be tons of work for
downstream projects to change it) and we cannot have multiple PMCs using this
groupId and package name.
*) Those reusable parts should have an own marketing name. We could reuse XBean
or find a better one.
Why? Geronimo is associated with a big and dead EE server, TomEE is associated
with an alive EE server. Better, but not much.
It should be clear that those reusable components are actually independent of
each of the 3 projects.
*) The reusablel parts each also have a separate livecycle.
*) If we really shutdown Geronimo then all the active components should be
moved to another project, the rest goes to the attic.
*) I totally don't care which PMC does the organisatorial thing as long as it
is active. That would be a plus for the TomEE PMC as it is reasonably more
active. We did not even get enough +1 for the last votes over here. That's not
making me happy.
So far we have a few possible solutions:
1.) Keep Geronimo but burry the G server and change all the site, etc to make
it sure that the public understands that G is now essentially something else.
Not sure if this works
2.) Same as 1 plus rename the Geronimo project to some other name (but still
3.) Create a new PMC with the usable components
4.) Move the usable parts to Commons
5.) Move the usable components to a disctinct area under the TomEE PMC, but
with a separate brand name. It should _not_ be TomEE components, but something
What I do not want is to only get a half baked solution. Either we solve this
fully or not at all.
Note: The outcome of this thread was that the Geronimo Application Server got
retired in the meantime and Geronimo focuses on delivering reusable components
in the EE space.
I'm happy to evaluate this again and move over all those parts to TomEE.
But only IF we find a way to make TomEE a viable Umbrella project.
What I do NOT want to happen:
* have components which are not reusable in other projects but tightly coupled
to the TomEE Application Server
We have tons of projects who make use of the Geronimo components. Think about
the geronimo-transactionmanager. It's used in OpenJPA, CXF, ActiveMQ, and even
many external projects. The same will happens (or already happened) with the
Geronimo based Miroprofile spec implementations.
* have users getting confused about the name 'TomEE'. Does it refer to the
project? Does it refer to the App Server? Does it refer to some components
which might be used on other app servers even?
We had this problem in MyFaces. That was the number one reason why things like
myfaces-ext-cdi (CODI) and my faces-ext-validation only had limited reach.
If I'd got just one dollar for every time I got the feedback that 'CODI looks
great, but sadly it only runs on MyFaces, but we have Mojarra'.
That is the number one reason why we extracted CODI out of MyFaces and created
The same happened with openwebbeans-test-control. The API also worked perfectly
fine with other containers. But nobody adopted it until we moved the code 1:1
to DeltaSpike as deltaspike-cdictrl.
Oh and Geronimo had this problem as well. Of course, now that the G app server
is officially dead this is a bit easier to explain.
That leads me to the following 2 points which we must solve:
* Make it sure that those components are totally independent from the 'TomEE
Appliation Server' part
* Make that fact clear to users. So we need a different brand name for this
That could even be 'Geronimo Components' hosted at the TomEE project.
I'd also keep the org.apache.geronimo package name and groupId. They are widely
used and esatablished.
Of course this requires 2 things:
1.) the TomEE community wants this to happen
2.) the Geronimo community wants this to let go.
Given that almost all of the active G people are also TomEE committers I think
that point 2 is a rather low barrier.
So and now give me some feedback pretty please ;)
PS: those who have access to the Geroniom lists please read up on the old
discussions to gather the full picture.
> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:32 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>:
> Mark you'd like us to talk about making TomEE an umbrella or not. I think
> it's probably best you frame up and lead the discussion as you're the most
> passionate about it and I won't do it justice.
> I'd like to suggest that we give it two weeks. If the conversation dies out,
> we need to read it as lack of interest and not stop people's work.