On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Holger Hoffstätte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking as someone who used to successfully fix teams and dev processes, > I can assert say that the intended dynamics by the meritocratic model only > work under certain social circumstances. These do not seem to be met - in > other words, for whatever reasons the committers are either not committed > or committing. I don't think we have social problem. I just think that the 'committers' are fairly pleased with what exists and don't want to rock the boat. After all, there are indeed many important projects/products out there successfully depending on this technology. And I totally respect that. I don't want to toss away the 2.1 trunk, it is will be maintained even if I had free hands to do what I want. But I think River can rise from the ashes of Jini, especially today when we see "Clouds" and funky computers like Azul Systems, where these ideas will come of age. Problem is, Jini has played its card and lost the developer battle. So, IMHO, River will maintain Jini 2.1 as-is, learn from this and resurrect Apache River Distributed Computing, without bazooning out that this is the next Jini. > That being said, I agree that forking would be counterproductive at this > point, if only because many small incremental improvements can be fixed > without falling into second-system-syndrome and the "big rewrite/fix > everything" trap. There are more than one way to do a 'big rewrite'... One includes not re-writing the actual code, but looking at how it is structured, replacing smaller bits, adding some sweets and repackaging it in a new shiny box or perhaps different boxes for the ladies in the room. I totally agree that there is no point in re-writing the codebase. Another thing is that one should look at aligning oneself with the rest of the market place and create attention... Cheers Niclas
