Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[David Jencks]

I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be 
useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top 
of my head….

Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?

Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I 
don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my 
jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust 
persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much 
faster.

xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  
Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)

yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and 
start contributing.

Any other bits being used?

If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to 
file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and 
some days not.

If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits 
(server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?

thanks
david jencks

> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
> 
> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere 
> is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting 
> down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all 
> its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner 
> of specs, xbean etcToday G is the result of communities and I don't see 
> it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with 
> sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and 
> can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project 
> probably).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog 
>  | Old Blog 
>  | Github  
> | LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory 
> 
> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom  >:
> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my 
> main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project 
> apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and 
> posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
> 
> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that 
> most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those 
> that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
> 
> Matt Hogstrom
> m...@hogstrom.org 
> +1-919-656-0564
> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
> Facebook   LinkedIn 
>   Twitter 
> 
> 
> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
> -  Hogstrom
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon > > wrote:
>> 
>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (strub...@yahoo.de 
>> ) wrote:
>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this 
>>> project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is 
>>> dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the 
>>> project going. 
>> 
>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the 
>> project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I 
>> do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think 
>> its enough to leave on its own.
>> 
>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still 
>> monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC 
>> folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>> 
>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we 
>>> are right now. 
>>> 
>>> What about starting look into 
>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons 
>>> project? 
>> 
>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about 
>> this.  But we’ll see.
>> 
>> —jason
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might 
>>> be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is 
>>> gonna happening? 
>> 
>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love 
>> in to any of what is presently here.
>> 
>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall 
>> some chatter on private@ 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere
is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so
shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the
worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now
seen as the owner of specs, xbean etcToday G is the result of
communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It
allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of
knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead
of G would mean fork per project probably).




Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom :

> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not
> my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project
> apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and
> posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>
> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is
> that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If
> those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>
> Matt Hogstrom
> m...@hogstrom.org
> +1-919-656-0564
> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
> Facebook   LinkedIn
>   Twitter
> 
>
> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
> -  Hogstrom
>
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon  wrote:
>
> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (strub...@yahoo.de) wrote:
>
> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this
> project. That is totally understandable and fine.
> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is
> dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the
> project going.
>
>
> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think
> the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a
> while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I
> don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
>
> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still
> monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC
> folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>
> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we
> are right now.
>
> What about starting look into
> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons
> project?
>
> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication
> about this.  But we’ll see.
>
> —jason
>
>
> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and
> might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that
> this is gonna happening?
>
> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any
> love in to any of what is presently here.
>
> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do
> recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to
> re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>
> —jason
>
>
>

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Matt Hogstrom]

I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my 
main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart 
from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the 
discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that 
most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that 
are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
Facebook   LinkedIn 
  Twitter 


"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon  wrote:
> 
> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (strub...@yahoo.de 
> ) wrote:
>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this 
>> project. That is totally understandable and fine.
>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is 
>> dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the 
>> project going.
> 
> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the 
> project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I 
> do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think 
> its enough to leave on its own.
> 
> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still 
> monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC 
> folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
> 
>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we 
>> are right now.
>> 
>> What about starting look into
>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons 
>> project?
> 
> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about 
> this.  But we’ll see.
> 
> —jason
> 
> 
> 
>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might 
>> be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is 
>> gonna happening?
> 
> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love 
> in to any of what is presently here.
> 
> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall 
> some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to 
> dev@ to include that discussion.
> 
> —jason
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Jason Dillon]

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (strub...@yahoo.de) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this 
project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead 
as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going. 

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the 
project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do 
believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its 
enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still 
monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks 
that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are 
right now. 

What about starting look into 
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons 
project? 
So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about 
this.  But we’ll see.

—jason



.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be 
good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna 
happening? 
I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in 
to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall 
some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ 
to include that discussion.

—jason

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Dave Horsey]

unsubscribe

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Mark Struberg  wrote:

> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this
> project. That is totally understandable and fine.
> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is
> dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the
> project going.
>
>
> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we
> are right now.
>
> What about starting look into
> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons
> project?
> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and
> might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that
> this is gonna happening?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 08.03.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Alan Cabrera :
> >
> > I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you
> are not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset
> of JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting
> the JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are
> even likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not
> reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF.
> >
> > Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete
> implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the
> project is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the
> spec is implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming
> bulk of the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the
> existing active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.
> There’s no denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just
> not enough to jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux
> of the matter, community.
> >
> > Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.
> >
> > When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart
> a new active community?  No.
> >
> > A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active
> community.  To be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.
> However, what’s the point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy
> for other OSS projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as
> an active ASF project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the
> wider community goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.
> >
> > Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the
> industry.  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth
> of activity is concrete proof of that.
> >
> > With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers
> with “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and
> create another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be
> borne in the Incubator.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
> >>
> >> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in
> maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects
> can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus
> several open source ones).
> >>
> >> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is
> no more a challenge but still a real need.
> >>
> >> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I
> can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are
> still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >>
> >> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
> >> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course
> Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will
> quickly blow up imo.
> >> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application.
> For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the
> missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this
> yet).
> >>
> >> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge*
> big-iron app servers!
> >> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting
> for 85% of apps.
> >>
> >> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would
> be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and
> BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
> >>
> >> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively
> maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not
> that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Mark Struberg]

Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this 
project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead 
as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.


Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are 
right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be 
good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna 
happening?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.03.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Alan Cabrera :
> 
> I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are 
> not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of 
> JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the 
> JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even 
> likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not 
> reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF. 
> 
> Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete 
> implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project 
> is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is 
> implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of 
> the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing 
> active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no 
> denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to 
> jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, 
> community.
> 
> Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.
> 
> When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a 
> new active community?  No.
> 
> A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To 
> be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the 
> point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS 
> projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF 
> project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the wider community 
> goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.
> 
> Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry. 
>  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity 
> is concrete proof of that.
> 
> With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with 
> “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create 
> another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in 
> the Incubator.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> 
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
>> 
>> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
>> 
>> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance 
>> mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely 
>> on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source 
>> ones).
>> 
>> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no 
>> more a challenge but still a real need.
>> 
>> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can 
>> see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still 
>> a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>> 
>> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices 
>> are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up 
>> imo.
>> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For 
>> most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX 
>> handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
>> 
>> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* 
>> big-iron app servers!
>> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 
>> 85% of apps.
>> 
>> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be 
>> better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal 
>> and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
>> 
>> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively 
>> maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not 
>> that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
>> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and 
>> all the people involved in this effort back 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Alan Cabrera]

I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are 
not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of JEE. 
 Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the JEE 
bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even likely 
to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not reflective of the 
viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF. 

Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete 
implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project is 
bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is 
implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of the 
code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing active 
OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no denying that 
much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to jumpstart a 
new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, community.

Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.

When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a new 
active community?  No.

A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To be 
sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the point?  
The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS projects and not 
indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF project.  Things get 
fixed and released, but in the end the wider community goes to the other OSS 
projects to consume those artifacts.

Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry.  
However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity is 
concrete proof of that.

With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with “can 
do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create another 
application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in the 
Incubator.


Regards,
Alan


> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau  wrote:
> 
> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
> 
> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance 
> mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely 
> on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source 
> ones).
> 
> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no 
> more a challenge but still a real need.
> 
> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can 
> see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still 
> a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog 
>  | Old Blog 
>  | Github  
> | LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory 
> 
> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg  >:
> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices 
> are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up 
> imo.
> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most 
> business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX 
> handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
> 
> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* 
> big-iron app servers!
> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 
> 85% of apps.
> 
> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be 
> better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal 
> and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
> 
> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively 
> maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not 
> that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and 
> all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament 
> for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated 
> imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.
> 
> 
> Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo 
> project.
> 
> * geronimo-jta
> * javamail
> * xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
> * the specs
> and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.
> 
> I'd definitly keep them alive.
> 
> I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested 
> in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Kevan Miller]

Thanks Alan! Many thanks for all you've done!

I think we all agree that it is time to retire the Geronimo Server portions
of the project.

My apologies to Romain, Mark, David, and others, but:

I think the entire project should be retired. I confess that I am not
closely following the dev list (I scan it from time to time for a general
sense of what's happening).

I don't see sufficient community behind the remaining sub-projects. If the
Geronimo project didn't exist, I seriously doubt that there would be calls
to form a new Geronimo EE Commons project. In my view, Geronimo is a
convenient code repository for some people interested in releasing code.
Thus, I think the entire project should be moved to the Attic. If there are
parts of the project that should live on, then let them be incorporated
into projects that will provide them the community they deserve.

And now the olive branch...

If there is sufficient community, then that community should be able to
develop a new project description (
https://projects.apache.org/project.html?geronimo) and report to the board.
Note that this change of the project's charter, may require approval by the
Board. And I expect there may be some reluctance to create a new
Commons-style project at the ASF. If we're (you're) able to accomplish
this, then you have my full support.

kevan

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
>
> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in
> maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects
> can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus
> several open source ones).
>
> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no
> more a challenge but still a real need.
>
> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I
> can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are
> still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github
>  | LinkedIn
>  | JavaEE Factory
> 
>
> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :
>
>> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course
>> Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will
>> quickly blow up imo.
>> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For
>> most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX
>> handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
>>
>> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge*
>> big-iron app servers!
>> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting
>> for 85% of apps.
>>
>> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be
>> better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal
>> and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
>>
>> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively
>> maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not
>> that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
>> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago,
>> and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid
>> fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite
>> outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.
>>
>>
>> Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the
>> geronimo project.
>>
>> * geronimo-jta
>> * javamail
>> * xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
>> * the specs
>> and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.
>>
>> I'd definitly keep them alive.
>>
>> I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been
>> interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons
>> part of the geronimo project.
>> But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the
>> Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There
>> are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move
>> over as sub-projects even.
>>
>> Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which
>> are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.
>>
>> txs for all the hard work!
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera :
>> >
>> > IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS
>> community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see
>> how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing
>> lists are 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

I share that vision (the one of Mark).

The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance
mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely
on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source
ones).

EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no
more a challenge but still a real need.

Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can
see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are
still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg :

> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices
> are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up
> imo.
> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For
> most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX
> handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
>
> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge*
> big-iron app servers!
> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for
> 85% of apps.
>
> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be
> better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal
> and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
>
> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively
> maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not
> that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago,
> and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid
> fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite
> outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.
>
>
> Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the
> geronimo project.
>
> * geronimo-jta
> * javamail
> * xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
> * the specs
> and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.
>
> I'd definitly keep them alive.
>
> I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been
> interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons
> part of the geronimo project.
> But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the
> Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There
> are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move
> over as sub-projects even.
>
> Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which
> are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.
>
> txs for all the hard work!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera :
> >
> > IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS
> community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see
> how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing
> lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting
> a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
> >   • the lack of interest in JEE
> >   • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
> >   • the size and age of the legacy code base
> >   • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new
> members
> > When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading
> about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are
> interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I
> can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE
> bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are
> still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in
> Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo
> was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE
> bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of
> Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the
> TCK.
> >
> > Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is
> prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even
> if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as
> I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on
> elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
> >
> > The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When
> 

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

[Mark Struberg]

I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are 
currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most 
business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling 
is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron 
app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% 
of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better 
to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those 
TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively 
maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not 
that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all 
the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for 
all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and 
it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo 
project. 

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive. 

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested 
in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the 
geronimo project. 
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo 
AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially 
other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects 
even. 

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not 
interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera :
> 
> IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community 
> that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re 
> going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are 
> pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger 
> active community.  The reasons for this are
>   • the lack of interest in JEE
>   • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>   • the size and age of the legacy code base 
>   • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
> When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about 
> a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting 
> problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of 
> anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is 
> already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One 
> is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not 
> already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS 
> projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still 
> relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the 
> comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
> 
> Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is 
> prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if 
> we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I 
> mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on 
> elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
> 
> The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one 
> precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a 
> decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been 
> knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d 
> rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
> 
> I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  
> Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time 
> to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no 
> doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of 
> replies to inquiries on this list.
> 
> There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am 
> honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the 
> planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant 
> community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should 
> shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of