On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 03:05 AM, Santiago Gala wrote:
Previously:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Lets talk about what a great thing the portlet specification committee >has done for the Jetspeed project.
>
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Yes, lets do that. (That's 1 out of 200 or so, so while there may be
>a problem with that specific JSR, we might have to look at a few more
>before generalizing.)
1 out of 200 is misleading. I think you mean that Andrew had just 1 example out of 200 JSR.
Yes - IOW, there are lots of JSR, and even if Andy has legitimate complaints about how the Jetspeed JSR is happening, I can't see how it thus applies to the whole thing.
A more adequate comparison would be the other way round:
. How many Apache projects are turned into JSR from the outside, not by the developers? I mean from people *not* in the team. (jserv/tomcat, the logging stuff, jetspeed) I bet that's it, please correct me. From the previous Pier email, it looks that we are close to 1.5 out of 3 than to 1 out of 200 (Just twisting as I see fit, following the previous example ;-)
The logging stuff was a real problem, and there is a *great* example of what still needs to change in the JCP. I detest the idea of logging in the standard JDK, and even worse, that it's not log4j.
BTW, it looks like an excelent metrics for innovation in Open Source that the industry wants to standardize on OS projects.
Definitely.
And later Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: (...)One way we can do this is for ourselves to do be spec leads for JSR's. Then we can set the rules for the group, and the license. Jetspeed has been around for a while - it was only recently that IBM (and ?) proposed the JSR. We could have done it long before that.It depends on your semantics for "recently". A historical account:
People from IBM Germany approached the team (Raphael Luta, myself) in autumn 2000 (In the ApacheCON Europe) with a proposal. They were working in what became Websphere Portal Server and it looks like they would base it (partially, I'm sure) on the Jetspeed work. Kevin Burton, the original leader, misteriously disappeared from the project by then. This is how I became the speaker in this ApacheCON.
A proposal was sent by the team to the list, and got heavily discussed (IRC, mail list, CVS repository). This (http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ msg05121.html) excellent summary by Raphael Luta, who took most of the formalization effort gives an idea of the situation by Feb 2001. This (http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ msg05089.html) post by Ingo Schuster (IBM voice in the list) gives idea to the level of discussion.
After this, two things happened:
* For the developers the priority was to stabilize the code base and have a release, *before* jumping to a heavy refactoring.
* The IBM team (Ingo was the most visible part) disappeared completely from the public list.
I have not been able to find anything in Google from those times, it seems they don't index "mbox.gz" archives (Please, Ovidiu, make them do it), so historicians will have to resort to http://jakarta.apache.org/mail/jetspeed-dev/ the .gz monthly archives :-)
Everybody having more than enough work to do, and nobody really pushing the proposal (DOocrazy) it languished.
In Dec 2001, a proposal was presented JSR 162 (Portlet API, Stefan Hepper, IBM http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=162). 6 days later JSR 167 (Java(TM) Portlet Specification, Alejandro Abdelnur, Sun Microsystems s/162/167/ in URL above) was presented. 20 Jan 2002 both were withdrawn, and 168 (with both leads s/167/168/ if you folloed the previous regexp).
Crystal clear :)
So, the industry jumped in. From then on, only David, Alejandro, Stefan, people in BEA, HP, etc. can tell what is going on. The proposal is not even in the "Community Review" stage one year later, as far as http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=168 says. In fact, it does not appear in the "List JCP by stage" page, which means it is still in "fuzzyland".
Right. So what can you do? I'm assuming that the JetSpeed community didn't stop what they were doing, and second, IIRC, no one from the ASF stepped up to be spec lead. IOW, if we give a hoot about these JSRs, which we should, why don't *we* do it?
Either a community
a) doesn't want to, in which case it doesn't matter how the Evil Tyrannical Sun That Controls All behaves or
b) it does, but only as a participant on the EG (from which info can be shared, I suppose - certainly something that can be negotiated with the leads on the JSR), or
c) it does the JSR itself.
I can't think of any other options.
Thanks for the informative history, BTW.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-956-2604(w) Adeptra, Inc. 203-434-2093(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 203-247-1713(m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
