On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Alan Williamson <[email protected]> wrote:
> No problems Sean. I will also be there, so if you need on-demand input,
> just shout out.
Thanx!
> As for the GPL
Each of the four engines I'm covering has a different license in this
case. Scala's is "BSD-style", Clojure's is EPL, Railo is LGPL and
OpenBD is GPL with a linking exception. I'll go look up section 7 of
GPLv3 to make sure I'm referring to the right thing.
>> - Copyright: TagServlet Ltd
> This is the holding UK registered Ltd company
Cool. I actually downloaded the source to double-check the copyright
before I posted this. I hadn't been sure whether it was TagServlet or
aw2.0 before then.
>> - Do you have a "Contributor's Agreement?
> Yes.
Ah, can you elaborate? I didn't see it listed anywhere and I wasn't
sure what your policy was. For example, Clojure has a CA (based on
Sun's / Oracle's standard CA) that potential contributors must
complete in writing and sign, then mail back to the project lead.
After that, they're added to the -dev mailing list and listed on the
contributors web page. And then they can submit code. Scala has a
similar CA although the process is slightly different. Railo is going
with a modified version of the Sun/Oracle CA and will have a process
somewhere between Scala's and Clojure's.
>> - contributors, committers and the patch submission process
>> - My understanding is that aw2.0 / TagServlet employees are the only
>> direct committers at present?
> No, aw2.0 and New Atlanta people have full commit access. Steering
> Committee members have commit access to the test suite.
Excellent! Thank you!
>> - Contributions are accepted in the form of patches, which are
>> reviewed by the committers?
> Yes, we have a our Code Tzar (andy) that makes sure nothing "naughty" is
> contributed that would cause problems elsewhere.
Thanx.
>> - Direction for the language comes from:
> All of the above, including our users of the engine that will email us
> directly. The CFML community does not seem to want to be heard publicly
> for some reason. There really is a silent majority.
Indeed there is. Railo has UserVoice for feedback and public voting
but we still get a lot of direct suggestions.
> Although i would caution that the order of the list does not necessarily
> imply the most direction.
Do you have a sense of a prioritized order? Or would you say there
really isn't one?
- aw2.0 core team
- Steering Committee
- openbd mailing list
- Trac submissions
- user suggestions via email
- other?
> The Core Engine _includes_ the GAE runtime. We no longer make a
> distinction.
Ah, good. I wasn't sure how far along that work was.
> Correct, these are typically pieces of functionality that should maybe be in
> the core engine, but are left as a plugin to let them evolve at their own
> pace.
Railo follows a similar approach.
> Yes, quite a significant amount of work has been done on true MS-Exchange
> plugin. There are smaller plugins that have been submitted too for
> integration into the likes of Facebook and Twitter.
Nice. Is there a central location for listing these or is it more up
to the community to disseminate?
>> - 3rd party libraries - any portable CFML library (so it's
>> essentially a free-for-all as is true for most open source
>> communities)
> Not quite sure what you mean there?
Just CFML code. I'm comparing with Clojure and Scala which both have
3rd party libraries. Some are 'recommended' by the Scala working group
and those tend to have more structured development cycles. Clojure has
a specific 'contrib' namespace for incubation but beyond that both
languages just have a community free-for-all. So, some contrasts but
mostly similarities here.
>> - twice a year (April 27, October 27)
> Correct, we celebrate the initial release of our engine to the open source
> world every year with a new release.
Ah, that explains the dates - I wondered if they were significant. It
looks like "first public release (5/3/08)" with annual releases on
April 27th thereafter.
> We do this on a 6 monthly basis as
> there is just too much goodness to hold back on for a full year.
:)
> Yes, and again, many people will email us directly. Yes, you can purchase
> support from us, including purchasing feature development ahead of our
> roadmap, if you need it now.
Great! Same as Railo then.
>> - a commercially licensed version of OpenBD is also available from
>> aw2.0 (my assumption?)
> No, aw2.0 does not provide a commercial version.
Ah, I wanted to check that since I'd seen an exchange on a blog that
suggested a closed source commercial version could be bought. I
misread that to mean OpenBD but your explanation makes more sense.
Thanx.
> aw2.0 is not in the business of CFML. It is not our core business. We are
> a Java house focusing on high-performance massive-volume cloud enterprise
> solutions.
Good to know. That adds some color to the story and is a
differentiator with Railo.
--
Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN
Railo Technologies, Inc. -- http://getrailo.com/
An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- Margaret Atwood
--
tag/function ref: http://www.openbluedragon.org/manual/
mailing list - http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en
Get to Texas in Feb for OpenCFSummit http://www.opencfsummit.org/
