FW: joining the big team is a privilage
Forwarded from Incubator. -Original Message- From: RATHANASALAM RADHIKA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:12 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: joining the big team is a privilage hi this is radhika i like to join the project of j2ee which i can serve a little in which plenty of genius are joint hands with it i need more details about this project . waiting for your warm welcome thanking you radhika
RE: Forming an ActiveMQ PPMC
James Strachan wrote: Brian McCallister wrote: The ActiveMQ committers have decided to aim for TLP status (1) OK we need to get a PPMC in place. Thus far we have been working under a committer votes all count style FWIW we've had a PPMC in place for some time ;) As James notes, you've already had a PPMC. And, the only votes that ever count are those from PMC members, in this case Incubator PMC members. So those would be you, Jason, James, etc. --- Noel
FW: open-source Geronimo project from Apache.
Forwarded ... please follow up. --- Noel -Original Message- From: Senthil Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 18:32 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: open-source Geronimo project from Apache. Hi, I am S.Senthil Kumar from India and have around 7+ year of coding experience in Java technology and I seriously would like to take part in the up comming J2ee open source server name Geronimo project from Apache. Thanks Best Regards S.Senthil Kumar.
FW: Apache Geronimo
-Original Message-From: milan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 0:42To: general@incubator.apache.orgSubject: Apache Geronimo My name is Milan Shrestha .Am am an IT Engineeer . I have about one year experience working in java. I have heard the project proposed by apache named Apache Geronimo . So I would be thankful if I got chance to work and contribute for your project . Regards, Milan Shrestha Kathmandu Nepal
RE: Maven Repo Woes - Temporary resolution in place
Joshua Slive wrote: So you not only have your build process tied to apache infrastructure in a non-scalable way Is this the issue with Maven not handling redirects, or something else? but you are essentially doing a DoS attack against the infrastructure every time you build. Great. Is this related to anything other than the scalability issue? --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. Just to be clear, though, that's just a personal opinion Which part of Personally, I believe wasn't clear? ;-) What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area. I've posted *my* first-pass definition of the term: a TLP that has no deliverable packages of its own, only from its subprojects. So Geronimo would not be, DB would be? that's my working definition. Not at all bad for a first cut. Certainly thought provoking. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: Our goal when starting the incubation process of ActiveMQ, OpenEJB, ServiceMix, WADI, and XBean, was to consolidate the Geronimo community. Consolidating the community is a good thing. I've long wanted to see a number of those projects at the ASF. The vision was to have a single community focused on building a modular server architecture based on a single core. No disagreement. The question at hand is simple and specific. Are you going to actually make one community from the bunch, with everyone having access to work on every piece of code? Are you going to have a large, single, PMC with everyone having binding decisions over every aspect of the project? THAT is a TLP. each of the sub projects would be deliverable as a standalone (basically the core with one plugin installed). Separate from destination, but that sounded fine right up to the last point. What is the core? If I just want ActiveMQ, or I just want OpenEJB, or I just want ... can I get it, or do I have to take some code Geronimo stuff, too? From what Alan Cabrera said last night, it sounded as if there have been some complaints about that, specifically in his example with OpenEJB. Or in my case, if we want to use ActiveMQ for JMS in James, what other non-ActiveMQ bits would we required to deal with in order to get the code that was apparently separable earlier? end up with just a bunch of separate TLPs because of some unknown apache rules. I'm expressing a personal opinion that the projects would be better off as TLPs that collaborate with Geronimo. From what I am being told, that is not an uncommon view within those communities, although there are questions as to whether to go TLP directly or via Geronimo. Perhaps that ought to be put forward for the individuals who make up the communities to directly answer? :) --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
James Strachan wrote: What other issues are there? A number of infrastucture issues. Votes from the Incubator PMC and Geronimo PMC. To do that responsibly, I'd say that we would want to see communities having demonstrated that they understand how to practice as an ASF community. Such things are subjective, and typically have taken some time. Looking at the historical record: Derby took a year; Nutch took 5 months; JaxME and jUDDI took 6 months; JDO took 7 months. Those are just a few projects that have graduated to another TLP, and every community is different, but ActiveMQ and ServiceMix haven't been in the Incubator for 3 months, and are still moving over their infrastructure. Anyone see a need to rush to judgment? --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Henri Yandell wrote: Justin Erenkrantz wrote: The APR spin-off from HTTP Server was probably the first federation (although it wasn't called that). HTTP Server depends upon APR and they have a large committer and PMCer overlap (but not total), but from the Foundation/Board's perspective - they are independent TLPs and are treated as such. The same technical arguments seem to be made for ActiveMQ and ServiceMix in their dependency relationship with Geronimo. -- justin Right. I would suggest having individual TLPs, individual mailing lists, and individual websites, but with a lot of cross-linking, Something in that realm, sure. I am sure that there are a variety of ways to structure Federation. People are still exploring them. We also talked about how ontology might be addressed to support cross-project discussion. And the work that Dave Co are doing with projects.apache.org can help. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: I only see infrastructure issues in your list of concerns that would prevent the graduation of ActiveMQ. Look again, but also at comments from Dims, Henri and others. You express an opinion that it should be a TLP but mention that it has a long way to go before it's ready for that. Can you enumerate what remains, aside from the infrastructure issues See my reply to Dain. And I do feel that some of it does come down to being able to convey a subjective confidence to the Incubator PMC that the community really does get it regarding ASF principles and practices. And that is supposed to happen before, not after, a community leaves the Incubator. If AMQ has less inspiring aspirations and was to initially land as a sub-project I am not sure how much difference there ought to be, but some of that comes down to the landing PMC. I do have a concern an issue of fairness. Consider David Blevin's well-stated views, including We've more or less been running as TLPs [for] the past two plus years already. So if we have some community that has been autonomous, and it becomes part of another TLP within the ASF, how fair would it be for the members of that community to lose their decision making ability? I would say not, so are they going to be made part of the destination PMC, which would be required for them to have binding votes? This is a generic issue. I would have to cross-reference in detail the PMC and committer lists for ActiveMQ and Geronimo to be specific to this case. I do realize that there is overlap, but also others who are part of ActiveMQ and are not part of Geronimo. Is Geronimo prepared to welcome them as Committers on the Geronimo TLP and members of the Geronimo PMC? Related comment will go as a reply to David Blevins. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
David Blevins wrote: Lots of good stuff, thanks. :-) If you ask me what my opinion on OpenEJB's future or James' opinion on ActiveMQ's future, we'll both probably tell you TLP is a good goal eventually. We've more or less been running as TLPs in relation to Geronimo for the past two plus years already, just at Codehaus. We've seen how that plays out and we'd like to try a much more unified front for a while and see what shakes out. The Geronimo world is awkward and unbalanced. We have too tight integration with OpenEJB such that the standalone version of that completely disappeared [, and too little integration with ActiveMQ.] We're aren't successfully leveraging each other's communities to the fullest. All in all, we don't make decisions together and lean on each other as much as we could. How is merging the communities into the Geronimo TLP going to correct these problems? Is the Geronimo PMC prepared to add all of you as Committers on the TLP, and add all or most of you to the Geronimo PMC? Is this going to result in a single community, or more integrated, better, meeting place for multiple communities? If the latter, that would indicate to me that you really should be a TLP. See Henri's e-mails for a fuller discussion of Federation. And what about community growth? When TLPs have sub-projects, how do they go about building up each sub-project? How quick would the target PMC be to grant TLP karma and PMC status to people interested in working on just one of these disjoint projects? Or would it have disjoint karma, and a smaller number of people with binding votes? See Henri's and Robert's comments on these issues. I'd really like to see all our projects rolled up, balanced out, then split up again along possibly different lines with potentially more standalone pieces than we see now. So you see putting everything together in Geronimo as a first step towards a significant reorganization, with multiple TLPs? TLP is a good goal, but I really see value in the journey. So do I. The question appears to be where/how to take that journey. :-) --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project) That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct? Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: 'So close to graduation'? Whence comes that? I think that proximity is still very much up in the air, particularly given Noel's opinion that [...] Keep in mind that is *my* opinion. The Incubator PMC as a whole may or may not agree. For a guy who is seriously independent, I'll put it this way: *I* will fight to ensure *our* *collective* decision making process. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
That's not actually a formal requirement though, correct? Not at this time. We're still discussing what the SHOULD and MUST will be, as I mentioned in the fuller context of what you quoted. Hmmm ... or perhaps I hadn't made it as clear as I thought I had. I just went back and found that particular e-mail. Sorry. To be clear, as noted above, we're still discussing SHOULD and MUST. There is no *requirement* today that a project have at least 3 Mentors. I hope that we will end up agreeing that it SHOULD, but with leeway to allow for the PMC to apply human judgment. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: When AMQ entered the incubator as a sponsored project from Geronimo, the current understanding of incubator rules was that AMQ would simply use the Geronimo pmc since the Geronimo pmc is expected to be the home for the project. Since then the incubator rules have been rewritten several time and based on the emails I saw today I'm not sure where you got the idea that this or any other policy was changing from under ActiveMQ. My comments, for example, regarding Yoko that this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that: Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation were reiteration, not new policy. Sam and others have said pretty much the same thing. It has never, since the inception of the idea of a PPMC, been the case that a project could use another PMC for its PPMC. If there is a sponsoring PMC, it is certainly welcome (and usually expected) to participate, but the Incubator PMC has sole discretion and authority to bring new projects into the ASF. Consider Derby. Derby had a PPMC. The DB PMC was not in charge of Derby. The Incubator PMC managed Derby until graduating it. Derby went into DB (although it would have been fine, IMO, if Derby had gone TLP). Personally, I believe that ActiveMQ ought to be a TLP. It is clearly the case that although ActiveMQ can be used by Geronimo, it is an independently usable, separately releasable project with its own community that happens to have some overlap with parts of Geronimo. The same is true of a number of projects that Geronimo has sponsored (thank you :-)), and which ought to be separate TLPs in my view. Keep in mind that the ASF Board has established a pretty conscious decision for projects to go TLP, and to disband umbrella projects. The Jakartaization of is not considered a compliment. What makes a project with multiple codebases an umbrella is a gray area. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: This is not a vote, but simply a discussion about the graduation of ActiveMQ from the Incubator. And should have been on general@incubator.apache.org, not [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whether or not to cross-post to a myriad of other lists is a separate question of netiquette. And the Geronimo PMC can address the use of [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the meantime, since this was cross-posted to at least two public lists, I am replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, on to the main topic: Personally, I do not consider ActiveMQ ready. And I do believe that it should be targeting TLP status. It has its own community, is separately releasable and useable in many projects, not just as part of a J2EE server, and would do better as its own TLP. To reiterate, these are my views. The Incubator PMC may share or differ in its collective view. Keep in mind that I am not saying anything negative about ActiveMQ. I like the project. I have had quite constructive discussions with members of the project about possibly using the project. It simply has a way to go before it is ready as a TLP. For that matter, as others have pointed out, it still has some way to go in migrating infrastructure, of which JIRA is only one issue, and is being addressed. Generally speaking, I concur with the point made by others: new projects should learn from the mistakes of others, not emulate them. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Dain Sundstrom wrote: I agree it is important to have as much as possible on apache hardware. It was my understanding until I read this thread here, that infrastructure was fine with leaving JIRAs for imported projects hosted remotely until the JIRA had a better import tool. Please keep in mind that when I speak, Sam speaks, Ken speaks, Justin speaks, etc., we are airing our own views. In general, I would assume that someone is speaking as an individual rather than a role, unless otherwise indicated. Greg Stein, for example, only uses his @apache.org address when posting as the ASF Chairman. If you see him posting from another e-mail address, he is posting as just Greg. In other cases, you might notice someone specifically mention in the e-mail what hat they are wearing. When the Incubator PMC speaks, it does so with a consensus, which may or may not coincide with the individual views of all of its members. Individuals have differing priorities. How the community makes decisions and how it interacts with the rest of the ASF are high on my list. The ASF is about individuals making a deliberate and concerted effort to say that collaboration and consensus are the key principles. Even when we argue about something, that's an expression of that structure. Getting this across to people joining the ASF is an crucial part of what Incubation is supposed to do, in my view. --- Noel
RE: ActiveMQ Graduation From Incubator
Alan, Others are commenting on the infrastructure issues still on the plate for ActiveMQ. And, yes, migrating out of JIRA is a PITA. Jeff is proposing that we end up running lots of JIRA instances because we have to pull in several sets of JIRA imports from atlassian, codehaus, and elsewhere. I have no idea when Atlassian will support single project imports from JIRA as it does from Bugzilla. On the community side, we're still a bit shy of Mentors on ActiveMQ (James is the only one, and we are looking for at least 3 per project), and the ASF community building is only just getting started. No PPMC, yet, for which we need more Mentors. There has been some concern about growth rate within the Incubator. Requiring 3+ Mentors to help oversee projects puts a natural, but scalable, limit on our growth. In the meantime, we have some growing pains, because projects are already here, and lack the resources. --- Noel
RE: Ode Proposal (Sybase BPEL engine donation))
Sanjiva, - Given the, um, strong feelings expressed by so many people about this project, how about if we get the Incubator PMC to sponsor this poddling? Agreed. That is what I said to the Geronimo PMC, as well. The Incubator PMC will sponsor the project. --- Noel
RE: BPEL contribution from Sybase
Dain Sundstrom wrote: I think ServiceMix is the perfect home for a BPEL engine. Every JBI implementation that I am aware of has and integrated orchestration engine exposed via the BPEL specification. If every JBI implementation has an integrated orchestration engine, then we should factor out the orchestration engine. Furthermore, as per the JBI Specification, Java Business Integration JSR (JBI) extends J2EE and J2SE with business integration SPIs. These SPIs enable the creation of a Java business integration environment for specifications such as WSCI, BPEL4WS and the W3C Choreography Working Group. JBI is applicable outside the context of J2EE. So if ServiceMix is intended to be embedded exclusively in Geronimo (the subject of a whole other discussion), JBI should be available separately. Also, we already have two engines in the Incubator, with two more pending, so we may have three implementations of BPEL. I would expect to see at least one of them close down, and would like to see the orchestration communities merge, if possible. I've heard nothing to provide a reason for not bringing in the contribution as a standalone podling, which ServiceMix and others can consume. This would be in accord with Ken and Mads. On a related note, I believe that we need to evaluate projects for graduation based in part on how well the community collaborates with other ASF projects, and become part of the ASF community. I don't consider ghettos to be healthy for the ASF, no matter how internally successful. --- Noel
RE: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
Alan, Please note that this is not a Geronimo sub-project. Incubator projects are just that: Incubator projects whose final destination will be determined at graduation. Amongst other issues, we want to be inviting and inclusive of whomever wants to participate, including other ASF projects. Pre-supposing that it is a sub-project of any particular TLP can be contrary to community building. Hmmm ... I think that we should work this into our docs. --- Noel
RE: [VOTE-RESULT] Yoko - A CORBA Server Sub-Project Proposal - PASSED
Alan, Could you folks turn up some additional Mentors? We have not adopted a formal policy to require more than one --- yet --- but I'd like to see more than one. --- Noel
FW: JavaMail and JAF available as Open Source!
FYI. Do not cross-post replies. --- Noel -Original Message- From: A mailing list for discussion of the JavaMail(tm) API [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 14:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: JavaMail and JAF available as Open Source! As we announced at JavaOne, Sun has released its J2EE (now called Java EE) application server as an open source project on java.net. The project is called GlassFish and you can find out more at http://glassfish.dev.java.net. GlassFish is available under the CDDL open source license. GlassFish contains JavaMail and JAF, so the source code for both is available under CDDL as well. GlassFish currently contains JAF 1.1ea and a version of JavaMail slightly newer than 1.3.3ea. Right now, JavaMail and JAF are only built as part of a GlassFish build. Eventually I hope to improve the build system so that the standalone releases of JavaMail and JAF can be built from the GlassFish source base. (Unfortunately, I have about 100 other more important things to do before I get to that.) Those of you looking for source code for debugging purposes, or with a need to improve JavaMail for your own use, should start with the GlassFish source. You'll need to be a java.net member and you'll need to accept the terms of the CDDL license, but note that CDDL is an OSI-approved Open Source license (it's the same license used by OpenSolaris, and a derivative of the Mozilla Public License) so you're free to use it in many ways that were previously restricted. If you make improvements to JavaMail or JAF, and would like give those improvements back to Sun (which you're not required to do), you'll need to sign a Sun Contributor Agreement so that we're sure you have to rights to give us what you're giving us. (Signing the SCA once allows you to contribute to any Sun open source project, including GlassFish, OpenSolaris, NetBeans, etc.) Note that improvements to the JavaMail and JAF APIs (the javax.* APIs) need to be approved by the JCP. Enjoy the latest JavaMail and JAF source, and please be patient as we transition our build and release processes to java.net. The JavaMail Team
Using Subversion to manage change while preserving stability.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I would like to propose a moratorium on any changes to our
infrastructure or our maven architecture until we have
passed the TCK.
On the technical front, you can change how you are doing development, now
that you are using Subversion. You can create a branch for the testing, or
for experimenting, or for preparing a release, and work out of there. You
can even go so far as to have branches/{alan,dain,jeremy,...} if you were so
included. The point is that you can WORK in source control, not just check
things in when you have something finished and tested. You can do this
without stepping on each other, and have easy merges between branches.
For example, you can create a branch for managing the next release. The
Release Manager can decide what goes in or not, and merge things from other
branches as desired. No matter how much restructuring goes on in trunk or
someone else's branch, it won't effect that release branch.
--- Noel
CVS Lock down
Locking down CVS now ...
RE: Eve integration with Geronimo
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Alex Karasulu is working on it. I suspect that it will be completed soon. Alex? Small matter of something called a hurricane has Alex off-line at the moment. --- Noel
