Re: J2G future positioning
I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new migrators we create. Best wishes, Paul On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps. Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this M2G Toolkit ;-) Cheers Prasad. On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new migrators we create. Best wishes, Paul On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
+1 This is making a -lot- of sense. There is no reason that we need to build a huge monolithic Eclipse plugin to allow people to migrate applications to our modular server platform. I originally didn't even think about breaking it up into a group of specific plugins using a common core - even though that is what Geronimo is all about. Jay Prasad Kashyap wrote: I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps. Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this M2G Toolkit ;-) Cheers Prasad. On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new migrators we create. Best wishes, Paul On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
Looking back, I explained what I was intending very poorly in my previous reply, but Paul has worded it much better. I am in agreement with this approach 100%. +1 Jay D. McHugh wrote: +1 This is making a -lot- of sense. There is no reason that we need to build a huge monolithic Eclipse plugin to allow people to migrate applications to our modular server platform. I originally didn't even think about breaking it up into a group of specific plugins using a common core - even though that is what Geronimo is all about. Jay Prasad Kashyap wrote: I'm with Paul on this. I envision a Migrate2Geronimo Toolkit that will consist of a suite of individual plugins (for Eclipse and G), each handling the migration from a specific appserver to G. Of course, all these may depend on a base or common plugin. But the user will only deal with the plugin relevant to him. He will not have to install one big huge uber migrator if he only has jboss apps. Next week, we'll look forward to Jason adding a BEA2G plugin to this M2G Toolkit ;-) Cheers Prasad. On 10/30/07, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not in favor of generalizing the J2G Eclipse plugin into a super migrator that grows in complexity as we incorporate new types of source formats. I think that instead we should look into factoring out the parts of J2G that could be used for other types migrators into a separate Eclipse plugin. Then J2G could remain as J2G but could prereq this new Eclipse plugin, as would any other new migrators we create. Best wishes, Paul On Oct 29, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Tim McConnell wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
J2G future positioning
Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
I worry that giving it a more generic name before the tool can actually be applied in a generic way might confuse some users. Although, since it's being moved at the moment, it is the most convenient time to make such a change. I think adding some extra emphasis in the documentation that it's really only meant to be used on JBoss apps until further functionality is added might be sufficient to stem user confusion. What about a simple Geronimo Migration Tool name? ~Jason Warner On 10/29/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
On 10/29/07, Tim McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? I think it's a good idea to call it a migration tool. We definitely should not be using the name JBoss. j2g would be ok (though i'd be in favor of a generic name). --kevan
Re: J2G future positioning
I was trying to come up with something like that myself. I like the idea of keeping the 2. Somehow, Migrate 2 Geronimo was too obscure for me to grasp. Thanks for ending my mental struggle, Joe. ~Jason Warner On 10/29/07, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? I think it's a good idea to call it a migration tool. We definitely should not be using the name JBoss. j2g would be ok (though i'd be in favor of a generic name). I agree. What's not to like about a generic migration tool to get people on Geronimo even if the first version only works when you migrate from JBoss? :-) Personally, I'd still like to see the 2 in the name. How about M2G (Migrate to Geronimo)? The problem with something like Geronimo Migration tool or even just migration tool is that the direction isn't clear and we definitely want it to be known that we're helping you migrate to Geronimo. Joe
Re: J2G future positioning
Kevan Miller wrote: On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? I think it's a good idea to call it a migration tool. We definitely should not be using the name JBoss. j2g would be ok (though i'd be in favor of a generic name). I agree. What's not to like about a generic migration tool to get people on Geronimo even if the first version only works when you migrate from JBoss? :-) Personally, I'd still like to see the 2 in the name. How about M2G (Migrate to Geronimo)? The problem with something like Geronimo Migration tool or even just migration tool is that the direction isn't clear and we definitely want it to be known that we're helping you migrate to Geronimo. Joe
Re: J2G future positioning
I think it would be great if it can handle more than jboss to geronimo. We can have a pluggable migration framework that does most of the migration work that is needed from server A to geronimo, and allow a user to build additional plugins to plugin their server specific stuff in. For instance, a jboss plugin to have all the unique stuff that is needed for jboss to geronimo migration. Lin Jason Warner wrote: I worry that giving it a more generic name before the tool can actually be applied in a generic way might confuse some users. Although, since it's being moved at the moment, it is the most convenient time to make such a change. I think adding some extra emphasis in the documentation that it's really only meant to be used on JBoss apps until further functionality is added might be sufficient to stem user confusion. What about a simple Geronimo Migration Tool name? ~Jason Warner On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? -- Thanks, Tim McConnell
Re: J2G future positioning
I like a generic Migrator package name under devtools, so it leaves open the possibility for other app servers to Geronimo and to upgrade/migrate from previous Geronimo releases if we make major changes. -Donald Kevan Miller wrote: On 10/29/07, *Tim McConnell* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ?? I think it's a good idea to call it a migration tool. We definitely should not be using the name JBoss. j2g would be ok (though i'd be in favor of a generic name). --kevan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: J2G future positioning
I'm going more along with Jason's original reply here... I like the idea of calling it Geronimo Migration Toolkit, keeping the name slightly ambiguous with the toolkit at the end would allow for us to potentially 'grow into' it in the future. -Erik Tim McConnell wrote: Hi, Does anyone have any thoughts as to how we'll position the J2G plugin in the future ?? I understand now that in its initial iteration that it is narrowly scoped to work for JBoss specific migrations only (thus the JBoss in the name). However, it seems if we want to eventually enhance it as a more generic tool for migrating multiple applications to Geronimo (which I would hope we would), it might be a good time now to reconsider a more generic and/or appropriate name. Any thoughts ??
