Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
The kernel does not need to know anything about J2EE, it facilitates
components to collaborate to create a J2EE environment. I think if
the kernel starts to know more about J2EE then we are doing something
wrong.
--jason
On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:35 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 9/3/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following sentence made me want to make sure we didn't
wander into strange roads and get lost:
"Remember that the Geronimo kernel has no knowledge of J2EE."
This statement has no bearing on the outcome of the project - Geronimo
delivers a J2EE 1.4 certified application server. I'm not proposing
any deviation from J2EE as this will always be delivered. This is
simply a statement of fact about the design of the underlying
architecture that makes Geronimo more universally usable. This is what
allows the project to provide all the various assemblies that are
here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61EG;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
On 9/3/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following sentence made me want to make sure we didn't
wander into strange roads and get lost:
"Remember that the Geronimo kernel has no knowledge of J2EE."
This statement has no bearing on the outcome of the project - Geronimo
delivers a J2EE 1.4 certified application server. I'm not proposing
any deviation from J2EE as this will always be delivered. This is
simply a statement of fact about the design of the underlying
architecture that makes Geronimo more universally usable. This is what
allows the project to provide all the various assemblies that are
here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/assemblies/
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Snyder wrote: > On 9/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote: >>> For me, Jeff just hit the nail on the head. Remember that the Geronimo >>> kernel has no knowledge of J2EE. It was designed to be a bootstrap >>> kernel for any component (though I think that XBean is better suited >>> for the future) but IMO this was never fully realized due to the >>> shortcomings of CARs, but that is a different discussion. >> Just a reminder of why this project was created and what it's >> here to do: >> >> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best >> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the >> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management >> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of >> a certified implementation of the J2EE specification >> and related software and materials for distribution >> at no charge to the public. > > I'm not sure what the purpose is for posting this in response to > thoughts I conveyed above. Ken, can you please explain to me your > reasons for this? I can certainly assume, but I'd rather that you tell > me the purpose directly. The following sentence made me want to make sure we didn't wander into strange roads and get lost: "Remember that the Geronimo kernel has no knowledge of J2EE." - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRPrhBprNPMCpn3XdAQL1vAP/ZGlBHHbdXH2yk9dK2NFhQtxivK1w7syn xD9hBdRjRyvjvPsS1biZfVSTHH0/eSla6+y4HD9RTz0OxgKPdbMTGso8/F+apy2R CwL4KnikSi9JfW5EuJnHRnvETE12xKrBXmRuKJW5N5UeSDtpCUrDgG4Gz8LMkTbG 3QZSZvF3U0A= =Hqyf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Snyder wrote: > On 9/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote: >>> For me, Jeff just hit the nail on the head. Remember that the Geronimo >>> kernel has no knowledge of J2EE. It was designed to be a bootstrap >>> kernel for any component (though I think that XBean is better suited >>> for the future) but IMO this was never fully realized due to the >>> shortcomings of CARs, but that is a different discussion. >> Just a reminder of why this project was created and what it's >> here to do: >> >> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best >> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the >> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management >> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of >> a certified implementation of the J2EE specification >> and related software and materials for distribution >> at no charge to the public. > > I'm not sure what the purpose is for posting this in response to > thoughts I conveyed above. Ken, can you please explain to me your > reasons for this? I can certainly assume, but I'd rather that you tell > me the purpose directly. The following sentence made me want to make sure we didn't wander into strange roads and get lost: "Remember that the Geronimo kernel has no knowledge of J2EE." - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRPrhBprNPMCpn3XdAQL1vAP/ZGlBHHbdXH2yk9dK2NFhQtxivK1w7syn xD9hBdRjRyvjvPsS1biZfVSTHH0/eSla6+y4HD9RTz0OxgKPdbMTGso8/F+apy2R CwL4KnikSi9JfW5EuJnHRnvETE12xKrBXmRuKJW5N5UeSDtpCUrDgG4Gz8LMkTbG 3QZSZvF3U0A= =Hqyf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
On 9/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why would you not want to take the lead on this? You helped push the idea, you have a majority of the knowledge and your mentoring would eventually provide your goal..."more plugin authors and more plugins developed" [paraphrase]. You have a set of volunteers to help out, why not help guide this? Your thoughts? If I just do it, that's hardly going to spread the knowledge. If someone else is driving, I think it will work out better. Thanks, Aaron
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
On 9/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> For me, Jeff just hit the nail on the head. Remember that the Geronimo
> kernel has no knowledge of J2EE. It was designed to be a bootstrap
> kernel for any component (though I think that XBean is better suited
> for the future) but IMO this was never fully realized due to the
> shortcomings of CARs, but that is a different discussion.
Just a reminder of why this project was created and what it's
here to do:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
a certified implementation of the J2EE specification
and related software and materials for distribution
at no charge to the public.
I'm not sure what the purpose is for posting this in response to
thoughts I conveyed above. Ken, can you please explain to me your
reasons for this? I can certainly assume, but I'd rather that you tell
me the purpose directly.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
Aaron Mulder wrote: > Second, I don't want to take the lead on this. I want more people to > be familiar with plugins, how to build them, etc. I will be happy to > support and answer any questions, but we need more plugin experts, not > more dependence on the original author. Why would you not want to take the lead on this? You helped push the idea, you have a majority of the knowledge and your mentoring would eventually provide your goal..."more plugin authors and more plugins developed" [paraphrase]. You have a set of volunteers to help out, why not help guide this? Your thoughts?
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
Aaron, It's all related. If we set up a sub project, that will be tasked to maintain the repo as well. Anyways, Thanks for making things crystal clear about what you wish to do and not do. -- dims On 9/2/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First, the thread you quoted was talking about a plugin repository, holding the binary versions of plugins, not a home for plugin source code. It would be fine to work on both, but the source isse seems more pressing at the moment. Second, I don't want to take the lead on this. I want more people to be familiar with plugins, how to build them, etc. I will be happy to support and answer any questions, but we need more plugin experts, not more dependence on the original author. Thanks, Aaron On 9/2/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron, > > Last we checked, Matt, Hernan and I showed interest as well [1]. We > are looking for a leader to spearhead this effort. Let me be blunt, at > this point we are looking upto you to lead the way as the person with > the most knowledge/experience. Sorry to put you on the spot!. > > thanks, > -- dims > > [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115048484932019&w=2 > > On 9/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would be happy to help, not take a lead ;-) I have a lot on my plate > > right now. > > > > I would like to see all of our components as plugins (not just > > directory, samples, console ,etc). I think once everything is a plugin, > > the real value of Geronimo will begin to become evident. > > > > Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project > > > and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly > > > console, etc.) to that? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Aaron > > > > > > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we > > >> didn't have it yet. I concur > > >> that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. > > >> Esp. the Apache based ones like > > >> directory and samples. > > >> > > >> I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) > > >> > > >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> > Matt, > > >> > > > >> > I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject > > >> > for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to > > >> > develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. > > >> > Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this > > >> > plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of > > >> > community maintained modules (all licenses) here: > > >> > http://modules.apache.org/ > > >> > > > >> > We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut > > >> > our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't > > >> > wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. > > >> > > > >> > Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We > > >> > can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the > > >> > work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. > > >> > > > >> > thanks, > > >> > dims > > >> > > > >> > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I > > >> >> think he wants to build some > > >> >> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much > > >> >> work for him to build and > > >> >> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to > > >> >> do it elsewhere for the > > >> >> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put > > >> >> the alternate site together. > > >> >> > > >> >> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the > > >> >> community lacks the resources / > > >> >> interest to do both. > > >> >> > > >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> >> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools > > >> Subproject" why > > >> >> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant > > >> folks > > >> >> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to > > >> encourage > > >> >> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the > > >> red > > >> >> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a > > >> >> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project > > >> >> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am > > >> >> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > -- dims > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're > > >>
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
First, the thread you quoted was talking about a plugin repository, holding the binary versions of plugins, not a home for plugin source code. It would be fine to work on both, but the source isse seems more pressing at the moment. Second, I don't want to take the lead on this. I want more people to be familiar with plugins, how to build them, etc. I will be happy to support and answer any questions, but we need more plugin experts, not more dependence on the original author. Thanks, Aaron On 9/2/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aaron, Last we checked, Matt, Hernan and I showed interest as well [1]. We are looking for a leader to spearhead this effort. Let me be blunt, at this point we are looking upto you to lead the way as the person with the most knowledge/experience. Sorry to put you on the spot!. thanks, -- dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115048484932019&w=2 On 9/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would be happy to help, not take a lead ;-) I have a lot on my plate > right now. > > I would like to see all of our components as plugins (not just > directory, samples, console ,etc). I think once everything is a plugin, > the real value of Geronimo will begin to become evident. > > Aaron Mulder wrote: > > Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project > > and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly > > console, etc.) to that? > > > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > > > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we > >> didn't have it yet. I concur > >> that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. > >> Esp. the Apache based ones like > >> directory and samples. > >> > >> I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) > >> > >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >> > Matt, > >> > > >> > I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject > >> > for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to > >> > develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. > >> > Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this > >> > plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of > >> > community maintained modules (all licenses) here: > >> > http://modules.apache.org/ > >> > > >> > We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut > >> > our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't > >> > wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. > >> > > >> > Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We > >> > can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the > >> > work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > dims > >> > > >> > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I > >> >> think he wants to build some > >> >> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much > >> >> work for him to build and > >> >> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to > >> >> do it elsewhere for the > >> >> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put > >> >> the alternate site together. > >> >> > >> >> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the > >> >> community lacks the resources / > >> >> interest to do both. > >> >> > >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >> >> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools > >> Subproject" why > >> >> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant > >> folks > >> >> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. > >> >> > > >> >> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to > >> encourage > >> >> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the > >> red > >> >> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a > >> >> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project > >> >> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am > >> >> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. > >> >> > > >> >> > -- dims > >> >> > > >> >> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're > >> >> not > >> >> >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one > >> could > >> >> >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could > >> develop > >> >> >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to > >> >> do it > >> >> >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer > >> who's
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Snyder wrote: > > For me, Jeff just hit the nail on the head. Remember that the Geronimo > kernel has no knowledge of J2EE. It was designed to be a bootstrap > kernel for any component (though I think that XBean is better suited > for the future) but IMO this was never fully realized due to the > shortcomings of CARs, but that is a different discussion. Just a reminder of why this project was created and what it's here to do: WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of a certified implementation of the J2EE specification and related software and materials for distribution at no charge to the public. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRPohYZrNPMCpn3XdAQJvKQP8Co1OXaS5mRjD9plH+9WRB3tZOBuEqlAa lSVEqoJE0p1tlXy9eX5SWIJRs9UbVTCJesNTDYyebtyGPu94d4zD7RXKDEjSuqXy ZC55RJ74LcdjLNhh9VMLMT4Hwzoxr5frbW7ETzmdoK7JXzV2FJD5LwgFdRGv6ROz Ux8Epw194fs= =iUbU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
Aaron, Last we checked, Matt, Hernan and I showed interest as well [1]. We are looking for a leader to spearhead this effort. Let me be blunt, at this point we are looking upto you to lead the way as the person with the most knowledge/experience. Sorry to put you on the spot!. thanks, -- dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115048484932019&w=2 On 9/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would be happy to help, not take a lead ;-) I have a lot on my plate right now. I would like to see all of our components as plugins (not just directory, samples, console ,etc). I think once everything is a plugin, the real value of Geronimo will begin to become evident. Aaron Mulder wrote: > Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project > and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly > console, etc.) to that? > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we >> didn't have it yet. I concur >> that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. >> Esp. the Apache based ones like >> directory and samples. >> >> I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> > Matt, >> > >> > I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject >> > for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to >> > develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. >> > Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this >> > plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of >> > community maintained modules (all licenses) here: >> > http://modules.apache.org/ >> > >> > We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut >> > our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't >> > wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. >> > >> > Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We >> > can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the >> > work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. >> > >> > thanks, >> > dims >> > >> > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I >> >> think he wants to build some >> >> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much >> >> work for him to build and >> >> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to >> >> do it elsewhere for the >> >> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put >> >> the alternate site together. >> >> >> >> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the >> >> community lacks the resources / >> >> interest to do both. >> >> >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools >> Subproject" why >> >> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant >> folks >> >> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. >> >> > >> >> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to >> encourage >> >> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the >> red >> >> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a >> >> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project >> >> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am >> >> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. >> >> > >> >> > -- dims >> >> > >> >> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're >> >> not >> >> >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one >> could >> >> >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could >> develop >> >> >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to >> >> do it >> >> >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer >> who's been >> >> >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a >> bit >> >> >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your >> >> >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do >> >> outside >> >> >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it >> >> here. >> >> >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. >> >> >> >> >> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what >> >> >> signal >> >> >> does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing >> >> >> plugins >> >> >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes i
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
On 9/2/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would be happy to help, not take a lead ;-) I have a lot on my plate
right now.
I would like to see all of our components as plugins (not just
directory, samples, console ,etc). I think once everything is a plugin,
the real value of Geronimo will begin to become evident.
For me, Jeff just hit the nail on the head. Remember that the Geronimo
kernel has no knowledge of J2EE. It was designed to be a bootstrap
kernel for any component (though I think that XBean is better suited
for the future) but IMO this was never fully realized due to the
shortcomings of CARs, but that is a different discussion.
If I had my druthers, all modules in Geronimo would be developed as
plugins. This would mean that there is no need for a plugins
subproject. There would, however, be a need for some external project
to house plugins that are not compatible with the Apache License and
this is where the original idea of plugins stalled for various
reasons.
If all modules, Apache License compatiable or not, were developed as
plugins, they would just drop in and run. That's the power I see in
Geronimo that hasn't yet been fully realized. But I think we're on the
way.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
I would be happy to help, not take a lead ;-) I have a lot on my plate right now. I would like to see all of our components as plugins (not just directory, samples, console ,etc). I think once everything is a plugin, the real value of Geronimo will begin to become evident. Aaron Mulder wrote: > Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project > and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly > console, etc.) to that? > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we >> didn't have it yet. I concur >> that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. >> Esp. the Apache based ones like >> directory and samples. >> >> I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> > Matt, >> > >> > I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject >> > for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to >> > develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. >> > Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this >> > plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of >> > community maintained modules (all licenses) here: >> > http://modules.apache.org/ >> > >> > We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut >> > our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't >> > wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. >> > >> > Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We >> > can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the >> > work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. >> > >> > thanks, >> > dims >> > >> > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I >> >> think he wants to build some >> >> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much >> >> work for him to build and >> >> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to >> >> do it elsewhere for the >> >> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put >> >> the alternate site together. >> >> >> >> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the >> >> community lacks the resources / >> >> interest to do both. >> >> >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools >> Subproject" why >> >> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant >> folks >> >> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. >> >> > >> >> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to >> encourage >> >> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the >> red >> >> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a >> >> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project >> >> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am >> >> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. >> >> > >> >> > -- dims >> >> > >> >> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're >> >> not >> >> >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one >> could >> >> >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could >> develop >> >> >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to >> >> do it >> >> >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer >> who's been >> >> >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a >> bit >> >> >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your >> >> >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do >> >> outside >> >> >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it >> >> here. >> >> >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. >> >> >> >> >> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what >> >> >> signal >> >> >> does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing >> >> >> plugins >> >> >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation >> >> affect >> >> >> them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they >> >> >> might >> >> >> be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or >> scaring >> >> >> them >> >> >> away? >> >> >> >> >> >> The answers are of course harder. >> >> >> >> >> >> -David >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >>
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly console, etc.) to that? Thanks, Aaron On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we didn't have it yet. I concur that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. Esp. the Apache based ones like directory and samples. I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Matt, > > I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject > for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to > develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. > Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this > plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of > community maintained modules (all licenses) here: > http://modules.apache.org/ > > We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut > our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't > wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. > > Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We > can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the > work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. > > thanks, > dims > > On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I >> think he wants to build some >> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much >> work for him to build and >> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to >> do it elsewhere for the >> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put >> the alternate site together. >> >> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the >> community lacks the resources / >> interest to do both. >> >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why >> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks >> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. >> > >> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage >> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red >> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a >> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project >> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am >> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. >> > >> > -- dims >> > >> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're >> not >> >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one could >> >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could develop >> >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to >> do it >> >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. >> >> > >> >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer who's been >> >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a bit >> >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your >> >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do >> outside >> >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it >> here. >> >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. >> >> >> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what >> >> signal >> >> does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" >> >> >> >> >> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing >> >> plugins >> >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation >> affect >> >> them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they >> >> might >> >> be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or scaring >> >> them >> >> away? >> >> >> >> The answers are of course harder. >> >> >> >> -David >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins
Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we didn't have it yet. I concur that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. Esp. the Apache based ones like directory and samples. I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :) Davanum Srinivas wrote: Matt, I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of community maintained modules (all licenses) here: http://modules.apache.org/ We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. thanks, dims On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I think he wants to build some plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much work for him to build and maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to do it elsewhere for the licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put the alternate site together. I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the community lacks the resources / interest to do both. Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. > > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. > > -- dims > > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're not >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one could >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could develop >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to do it >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. >> > >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer who's been >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a bit >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do outside >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it here. >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. >> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what >> signal >> does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" >> >> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing >> plugins >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation affect >> them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they >> might >> be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or scaring >> them >> away? >> >> The answers are of course harder. >> >> -David >> >> > >
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins (was: Re: JPA Plugin patch))
Matt, I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time. Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of community maintained modules (all licenses) here: http://modules.apache.org/ We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project. Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere. thanks, dims On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I think he wants to build some plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much work for him to build and maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to do it elsewhere for the licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put the alternate site together. I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the community lacks the resources / interest to do both. Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. > > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. > > -- dims > > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: >> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're not >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one could >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could develop >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to do it >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. >> > >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer who's been >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a bit >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do outside >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it here. >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. >> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what >> signal >> does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" >> >> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing >> plugins >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation affect >> them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they >> might >> be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or scaring >> them >> away? >> >> The answers are of course harder. >> >> -David >> >> > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins (was: Re: JPA Plugin patch))
I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I think he wants to build some plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much work for him to build and maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to do it elsewhere for the licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put the alternate site together. I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the community lacks the resources / interest to do both. Davanum Srinivas wrote: Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. -- dims On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're not > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one could > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could develop > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to do it > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before. > > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer who's been > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a bit > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do outside > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it here. > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle. A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what signal does this send to the aspiring developers out there?" Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing plugins for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation affect them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they might be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or scaring them away? The answers are of course harder. -David
Re: Geronimo Plugins project (Re: Where to develop plugins)
+1 That's kind of what I was thinking about. Being new to Geronimo and not having enough time to spend organizing something like that, I didn't push it too hard, but such approach seems like the way to go. Andrus On Sep 2, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue. My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start. -- dims
