Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Genender wrote: I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the direction we will be going. If Alan has rescinded his veto (I haven't seen that on the list yet), and there is precedent for an Apache app to have its find-it search look at non-ASF sites (with potentially conflicting licences) first by default, then I will change my veto also. -0 I prefer that the default site be hosted at ASF, but this will do in a pinch. It is my understanding that all Geronimo commiters will have access to this default site. It is also my understanding that updates to this default site are not tied to Geronimo releases and that external projects/companies can expect some sort of reasonable SLA for the registration of their plugins; I would think that a 72 hour turnaround is reasonable. The default site should also manage the list of plugin _sites_. This way projects/companies can add their own plugin site w/out having to wait for a Geronimo release. Again, some sort of reasonable SLA for the registration of their plugin site; I would think that a 72 hour turnaround is also reasonable. Users could use this to update their console list of available sites. In short the list of plugins on the default site should be virtually updatable by the community w/out waiting for Geronimo releases and the list of plugin sites should be virtually updatable by the community w/out waiting for Geronimo releases. I recommend that we create a new Jira component for the purpose of plugin and plugin site registration requests. I prefer that it be named .org but, that's a trivial matter. Regards, Alan
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? Here's a alternative idea... How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...? Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here - just send a message to the mail list to have it included... Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that aren't from the ASF, etc. I really like this idea. It's simple and should be easy to setup. Regards, Alan
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [Apologoes for the apparent asynchronicity of my replies; my mail paths have been tortuous today.] Aaron Mulder wrote: > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Given that Maven has set a precedent here, I withdrawn my - -1 on geronimoplugins.com as a default. Which means AFAIK that it's just Alan left. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFfVO5rNPMCpn3XdAQIhsAP9G09x64Zya2X2c2Th+aLk4IDqmk1l9Ko+ yhlJa75FNxmkzp78O9wLK9vGppa1Un5Oz2X55Lt9PRJd3Bsw33UF8jVNtCtCAmnf ADHOaKWFbMhyZI9mumybr2yzKDRYkROVw9nooYO5g6oOJShy6mN9qjsmZLfChjU7 8m5lpktoDh4= =pIO9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Matt Hogstrom wrote: I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would take. I think we at least need to understand what is possible and not simply speculate on it. Speaking w/ my infra hat, there is a strong aversion to single-sourcing resources on ASF infra when they can be mirrored or embedded. I don't think we'd want to host plugins here unless we could mirror the repo. I'd imagine millions of copies of Geronimo banging away walking the repo would irritate someone :) (Also, remember the joke "Don't reboot the JBoss server - Sourceforge is down so the schemas won't resolve...") That's why I suggested changing the model so that there is a simple meta-data document that Geronimo the software reads to get info on either the plug-in list a set of URLs to plug-in lists... geir Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to leaving the www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a list from somewhere. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Davanum Srinivas wrote: +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default." Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a ASF location and a persistent URL for it? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e LlYwtP/2j1I= =/+xG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I think Geir is really onto something here. I spent a couple of years working on a project whose goal was to facilitate software reuse across the scientific computing community, which often uses a development model similar to open source. Our initial approach was to create a monolithic repository for all the software files and this led to a number of problems, everything from issues with intellectual property rights to debates on look and feel (sound familiar?). The more successful approach was to create a customizable data model for the software metadata and to harvest the entire collection of metadata into a centralized repository that contained pointers to the files hosted elsewhere. Here's the project url with papers 'n stuff in case anyone is interested in reading further http://icl.cs.utk.edu/rib/ Best wishes, Paul On 5/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. > > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. > > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? Here's a alternative idea... How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...? Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here - just send a message to the mail list to have it included... Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that aren't from the ASF, etc. geir
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
i was researching the old email threads on how maven set ibiblio as default and found these :) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102856845831969&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102634795116066&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102721396814966&w=2 -- dims On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Genender wrote: > > I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some > hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the > direction we will be going. If Alan has rescinded his veto (I haven't seen that on the list yet), and there is precedent for an Apache app to have its find-it search look at non-ASF sites (with potentially conflicting licences) first by default, then I will change my veto also. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFei95rNPMCpn3XdAQKHxwP/UHtP5sfaDrw3aAeobpd31GrNZAWlH6VH CXy/AB9wGRXOyB9jyPyjSmivhKkBsmbE9lPVz3nTk7NuZ7/48tCadY0PtWgcmX76 wZBdMKegDNMk6xuaglxqmiKNLHjDtiwOr8IbfCf11ey/m2s8BBwiyrM8staPP1jq hBKNmUX6geI= =oKY2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Matt, Just a thought, We could do it from the geronimo solaris zone...that way everyone involved have instant karma on the box to do the needful. thanks, dims On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would take. I think we at least need to understand what is possible and not simply speculate on it. Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to leaving the www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a list from somewhere. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the >> default and we need an ASF option as the default." > > Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a > ASF location and a persistent URL for it? > - -- > #ken P-)} > > 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 > > iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM > WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L > Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e > LlYwtP/2j1I= > =/+xG > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would take. I think we at least need to understand what is possible and not simply speculate on it. Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to leaving the www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a list from somewhere. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Davanum Srinivas wrote: +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default." Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a ASF location and a persistent URL for it? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e LlYwtP/2j1I= =/+xG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff Genender wrote: > > I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some > hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the > direction we will be going. If Alan has rescinded his veto (I haven't seen that on the list yet), and there is precedent for an Apache app to have its find-it search look at non-ASF sites (with potentially conflicting licences) first by default, then I will change my veto also. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFei95rNPMCpn3XdAQKHxwP/UHtP5sfaDrw3aAeobpd31GrNZAWlH6VH CXy/AB9wGRXOyB9jyPyjSmivhKkBsmbE9lPVz3nTk7NuZ7/48tCadY0PtWgcmX76 wZBdMKegDNMk6xuaglxqmiKNLHjDtiwOr8IbfCf11ey/m2s8BBwiyrM8staPP1jq hBKNmUX6geI= =oKY2 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hernan Cunico wrote: > > Aaron, all the decisions should be made on the dev list, specially if > the discussion was over IRC, you know that. We should be discussing > about the plugins before implementing them, not after. I disagree. Under CTR, everyone should be free to put in whatever they want. Part of the *price* of that freedom, however, is having to back out changes if someone raises an objection. What we're seeing here is the CTR process working exactly as it should. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeiR5rNPMCpn3XdAQIe1gP/XPDTzej2Od0r65R3fsdL3lw2VewYgsn8 v5VoLyHtnrW4SsmPoNG8765DH90nDWfcg1/2pZc1o10pB32rwfuwl9nV7kgE4KMo wnUjwQDG9bmLCVy/SxFMVbqFlj7OaINmKDI+iv7+MB4I9oK34DmAgvOc9WaNN29V 3Q/Dbsii09g= =oHIV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I'm a bit concerned about this issue impacting the 1.1 release. There are many questions that need to be resolved but I expect that investigating Apache Infra, what other sites will there be, etc. I think we can all agree that the feature is awesome. So, that said it needs to go into the release and I hope that is not in dispute. The primary issue is "Where is the site?" Right now the only site that is available is www.geronimoplugins.com. So, that as a default is fine with me. We should have something similar at the ASF for Apache software that we decide to make available. Quite honestly, the work to build, test and release a plugin from the project seems pretty tedious to me and I expect that we as a project won't like that revving these things. I propose we add the ability to have the server get a list from the geronimo.apache.org website. For now the default remains www.geronimoplugins.com until we have a better solution. Remember, this is not a dependency on other sites but rather an optional feature that allows for extension points. The server DOES NOT require the plugin function. It is an optional feature. My perspective as the 1.1 release manager is we leave it as is except for the ability to get a list from our site (or perhaps the maven ecosystem). I think we're all excited about the feature. Let's make this happen. I'll +1 my own suggestion. Aaron Mulder wrote: So it would be possible to construct a plugin list in the console from a variety of sources, or from a source containing pointers to other sources. I would like to minimize the number of network connections required to generate a single console page (to avoid console hangs if one of 11 sites is presently offline). So of these approaches, I'd prefer if the "central site" (Apache or whatever) maintained the master list of metadata and the console just downloaded that and used it to render the available list, and only hit the other sites for the actual downloads. So there are two issues if we go that way: 1) I think we still want a consolidated web-based plugin list for people who want to browse the available plugins without doing it through the console of a running Geronimo server. This could potentially be auto-generated from the master metadata, so long as that doesn't make it look terrible. 2) We still need a place to host non-Apache plugins for people who don't have an appropriate site of their own. One possibility is to keep the geronimoplugins.com site where it is to serve those duties, but maintain the master plugin metadata list at Apache. Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's providing, of course.) One advantage to this kind of approach is that we could put a hash for each plugin in the master metadata file and then you'd have to break 2 servers to swap in a corrupted file. Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to mitigate that is to have the internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched and a comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the plugin displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. If the sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible. This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem that we have today regardless of what the default is. Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life is simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue. The site's that have the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want. Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license file that is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license they are accepting. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. > > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. > > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? > > To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers > the best selection to the user. > > If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly, > we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who > want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an > Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as > images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser. > > There was a pro
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I am now satisfied with Aarons approach as well - my -1 is now a +0. My issues were more with discussing this before implementing (yes CTR may apply, but this clearly has the potential for enough strife that solid discussion should be appropriate on this topic). Thanks for the lengthy emails as of late Aaron, that has helped me considerably...and this is exciting stuff. I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the direction we will be going. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of >> commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have >> technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this >> a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the >> interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one. >> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until >> this is settled. > > If this is the decision, I can do it. > > Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. This > is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking > nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that > you're suggesting the page itself should not contain). > > In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until > there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied > with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can > confirm that). Who was the other vetoer? > > Thanks, > Aaron > >> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to >> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the >> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can >> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. >> >> Correct. >> >> > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial >> > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate. >> >> This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change >> without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review' >> aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies. >> - -- >> #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 >> >> iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b >> hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW >> ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw >> TTAHd9aaHXk= >> =jbh8 >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
OK, I'll put in such a change tonight. Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until >> this is settled. > > If this is the decision, I can do it. Thank you. > Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. Understood. > This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking > nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that > you're suggesting the page itself should not contain). Until we resolve whether it should be the default, I suggest the following workaround: 1. Have the app say 'sorry, no default plugin location has not been configured. please see the file hoo-hah.txt' 2. Have hoo-hah.txt explain how to set the property (or whatever), and list known locations. At the moment that'll mean geronimoplugins.com This way we're making it a decision the *user* has to make, rather than making it for him. And we're not silently introducing a non-ASF site dependency into ASF code. Regardless of how the geronimoplugins-by-default discussion gets resolved, this should be a very simple change to either revert or to enhance. How do people feel about that as a workaround? And we may end up deciding to use geronimoplugins as the default -- at least until there's something better. :-) > In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until > there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied > with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can > confirm that). Who was the other vetoer? Jeff Genender expressed a -1, as did Alan. Hernan didn't actually veto, but he *did* say "I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented." (Hernan, I hope I'm not quoting you out of context.) Matt and Dims said much the same. And I'm -1 also. When a change arouses this much controversy, I don't think it is a good thing to leave it in until vetoers are convinced. Not to mention that's not how it works. There is absolutely no reason why there *has* to be a working default in code currently only in svn. There is no requirement that the repository contain only working code. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeew5rNPMCpn3XdAQKx7wQA0B8Ag7NxngFjNbXI93VJtEn9t6t6SYfj J3Nf0KIU1jj7oDLrgF0Tltb0AeODfhy0JoP/MDrJ3zcl6TMyWzmv/8P0f2qrmZVx mhJCEwprEnUykGvaFtPWAD1UDKlLwz/7LaPT2G5oKBhR9LF9/kb93648l4g3BlGT ZQ83asB1s20= =t84U -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
With some guidance, sure. At least for ASF plugins. thanks, dims On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the > default and we need an ASF option as the default." Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a ASF location and a persistent URL for it? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e LlYwtP/2j1I= =/+xG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until >> this is settled. > > If this is the decision, I can do it. Thank you. > Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. Understood. > This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking > nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that > you're suggesting the page itself should not contain). Until we resolve whether it should be the default, I suggest the following workaround: 1. Have the app say 'sorry, no default plugin location has not been configured. please see the file hoo-hah.txt' 2. Have hoo-hah.txt explain how to set the property (or whatever), and list known locations. At the moment that'll mean geronimoplugins.com This way we're making it a decision the *user* has to make, rather than making it for him. And we're not silently introducing a non-ASF site dependency into ASF code. Regardless of how the geronimoplugins-by-default discussion gets resolved, this should be a very simple change to either revert or to enhance. How do people feel about that as a workaround? And we may end up deciding to use geronimoplugins as the default -- at least until there's something better. :-) > In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until > there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied > with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can > confirm that). Who was the other vetoer? Jeff Genender expressed a -1, as did Alan. Hernan didn't actually veto, but he *did* say "I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented." (Hernan, I hope I'm not quoting you out of context.) Matt and Dims said much the same. And I'm -1 also. When a change arouses this much controversy, I don't think it is a good thing to leave it in until vetoers are convinced. Not to mention that's not how it works. There is absolutely no reason why there *has* to be a working default in code currently only in svn. There is no requirement that the repository contain only working code. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeew5rNPMCpn3XdAQKx7wQA0B8Ag7NxngFjNbXI93VJtEn9t6t6SYfj J3Nf0KIU1jj7oDLrgF0Tltb0AeODfhy0JoP/MDrJ3zcl6TMyWzmv/8P0f2qrmZVx mhJCEwprEnUykGvaFtPWAD1UDKlLwz/7LaPT2G5oKBhR9LF9/kb93648l4g3BlGT ZQ83asB1s20= =t84U -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one. Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until this is settled. If this is the decision, I can do it. Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that you're suggesting the page itself should not contain). In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can confirm that). Who was the other vetoer? Thanks, Aaron > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. Correct. > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate. This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review' aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw TTAHd9aaHXk= =jbh8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Davanum Srinivas wrote: > +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the > default and we need an ASF option as the default." Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a ASF location and a persistent URL for it? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e LlYwtP/2j1I= =/+xG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
On May 2, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Jencks wrote: I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of non-asl compatible stuff. If you install Maven out of the box, is the iBiblio repository searched by default? Or do you need to tweak the property? I believe it needs to be manually added. It is the default. -dain
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Jencks wrote: > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't > see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at > ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes > oodles of non-asl compatible stuff. If you install Maven out of the box, is the iBiblio repository searched by default? Or do you need to tweak the property? I believe it needs to be manually added. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeRyJrNPMCpn3XdAQJXbAQAvk64R2KHKZ0JmdRsx/t7GtXlscXDLWAx TSr9QYdLk6jvdGctiG5LLFfdpurgo3QEFGk6yYvS73/pQmEXMppKCKgWNnyTUuT9 KK2PYzPcntMQ3UR+bCtaZATJoKGm/2Zwh7/dAUoMq6tUO+5srtUKnFn5c/t9zmP/ jHL8GfQdrzc= =vdN7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aaron Mulder wrote: > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please, > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you > describe your position? In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one. Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until this is settled. > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. Correct. > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate. This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review' aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw TTAHd9aaHXk= =jbh8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't >> been able to find much at all. > > No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions > at TSSJS and so on. Those do not count as Geronimo project discussions, any more than do any meetings/calls that IBM might have, or Intel, or WSO2, or schmoozing at OSCON. Which doesn't mean that *every* change has to be discussed on the Geronimo lists. Part of the freedom of doing things in CTR (commit then review) mode is the ability to make changes without them having to be discussed to death first. >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? > > No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, > including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site > for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL > open source and non-open source plugins. This is an excellent reason for it to be hosted elsewhere. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRFePiZrNPMCpn3XdAQK9UQP+Mbf+03yJWWElEvvnUDN7daiSYnwKGG81 vmeDktY2y1yNHFXUTYfSGMSKpkhE4PIrtx8Is+pv96BJ864npf7wVEShKjXgjmna xd6GnLdQTKy9VN5CzcVWuAmC+hRcHpT2679akoAoC8zH08zFmSIHOcD+prJc8nED DHfyVzZJu6k= =FZ1L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Hernan Cunico wrote: > Can anybody provide details (user/developer guide > documentation level) about the architecture and design. We desperately > need those details added to the product documentation, what we have > today is far from enough. Aaron posted two links to the list yesterday (Subject: About Geronimo Plugins). The first led to a short FAQ. The second led to a 58-page PDF that walked through a lot of the details as they stand today. Cheers, Erin
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Dain Sundstrom wrote: > Isn't there a bigger security concern here? Say some guy shows up and > says he is from organization X and wants to add the latest XSoft > application to the index get my point? Regardless of where things are hosted, I think it would be nice to eventually be able to support plugins signed with X.509** certificates so that people can verify the authenticity of signed plugins and knowingly accept risk when they install an unsigned plugin. For the first release though, a warning on the plugin page ought to suffice. I think it's important to get the technology out there and start getting feedback, inspiring plugin developers, etc. Cheers, Erin **I am a fan of GPG/PGP, but it's more tedious / less useful than centralized PKI for most users who haven't established a strong web of trust.
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Aaron Mulder wrote: I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers the best selection to the user. If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly, we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser. There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases), which is also fine. Aaron, all the decisions should be made on the dev list, specially if the discussion was over IRC, you know that. We should be discussing about the plugins before implementing them, not after. Based on the previous paragraph are you also proposing the creation of a "separate organization", did I get that right Isn't the project "Apache" Geronimo??? why would we strip it to the bone and have all the functionality available elsewhere? I do not believe the next paragraph is a long enough explanation/justification. I think a deeper analysis should be made about the pros and cons. Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components available to Geronimo users. Again, I think we need to discuss further the whole approach and the implications. Can anybody provide details (user/developer guide documentation level) about the architecture and design. We desperately need those details added to the product documentation, what we have today is far from enough. I can't write everything by myself, so please help with the documentation (that applies to all the topics) Cheers! Hernan Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the Geronimo Plugins Site. * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability. * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the information contained on their site. Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed. However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up. I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default. Matt David Jencks wrote: > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. > > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a > server, so the process of building the server for your application can > be somewhat integrated into your build process. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: > >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" >> page. This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I >> haven't been able to find much at all. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? >> Where is the source for the site? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Isn't there a bigger security concern here? Say some guy shows up and says he is from organization X and wants to add the latest XSoft application to the index get my point? I don't think the Apache Geronimo project has the free time to provide the due diligence that this type of site requires. I would prefer that we take advantage of groups that want to run such a site. I'm thinking of Aaron, Apache for Apache plugins, and maybe one day we can just use the central Maven repository. -dain On May 2, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: On 5/2/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's providing, of course.) No. we do it for gump already. thanks, dims
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
On 5/2/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's providing, of course.) No. we do it for gump already. thanks, dims
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
So it would be possible to construct a plugin list in the console from a variety of sources, or from a source containing pointers to other sources. I would like to minimize the number of network connections required to generate a single console page (to avoid console hangs if one of 11 sites is presently offline). So of these approaches, I'd prefer if the "central site" (Apache or whatever) maintained the master list of metadata and the console just downloaded that and used it to render the available list, and only hit the other sites for the actual downloads. So there are two issues if we go that way: 1) I think we still want a consolidated web-based plugin list for people who want to browse the available plugins without doing it through the console of a running Geronimo server. This could potentially be auto-generated from the master metadata, so long as that doesn't make it look terrible. 2) We still need a place to host non-Apache plugins for people who don't have an appropriate site of their own. One possibility is to keep the geronimoplugins.com site where it is to serve those duties, but maintain the master plugin metadata list at Apache. Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's providing, of course.) One advantage to this kind of approach is that we could put a hash for each plugin in the master metadata file and then you'd have to break 2 servers to swap in a corrupted file. Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to mitigate that is to have the internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched and a comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the plugin displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. If the sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible. This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem that we have today regardless of what the default is. Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life is simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue. The site's that have the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want. Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license file that is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license they are accepting. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. > > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. > > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? > > To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers > the best selection to the user. > > If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly, > we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who > want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an > Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as > images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser. > > There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit > organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to > ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another > recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be > updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases), > which is also fine. > > Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core > offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site > for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the > widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components > available to Geronimo users. > > Thanks, >Aaron > > On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. >> >> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I >> believe their availability >> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is >> currently available for the >> Geronimo Plugins Site. >> >> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build >> the server. I think there is >> a different constituency of people that would be depending on >> availability. >> >> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there >> are other places to get the >> information contained on their site. >> >> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and A
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to mitigate that is to have the internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched and a comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the plugin displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. If the sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible. This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem that we have today regardless of what the default is. Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life is simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue. The site's that have the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want. Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license file that is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license they are accepting. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers the best selection to the user. If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly, we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser. There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases), which is also fine. Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components available to Geronimo users. Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the Geronimo Plugins Site. * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability. * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the information contained on their site. Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed. However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up. I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default. Matt David Jencks wrote: > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. > > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a > server, so the process of building the server for your application can > be somewhat integrated into your build process. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: > >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" >> page. This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I >> haven't been able to find much at all. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >> Will it be an
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Aaron Mulder wrote: As far as whether plugins are valuable, here's an example to consider. Let's say someone gives you an EAR that contains a WAR and an EJB JAR, and uses JMS as well as a database pool. Your task is to get this running in Geronimo. Strategy 1: File-based (they provide EAR, you write 5 XML files) - install any required 3rd party JARs - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the DB pool - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the JMS resources - deploy all those in some sensible order, each with the accompanying JAR file (the TranQL RAR and ActiveMQ RAR for the resources) Strategy 2: Use the console to your advantage (they provide EAR, you write 3 XML files) - install any required 3rd party JARs - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR - use the console to configure, test, and deploy the DB pool - use the console to configure and deploy the JMS resources - deploy the application Strategy 3: Install from a plugin (they provide plugin) - point Geronimo to the application plugin. Application, DB Pool, and JMS resources are all downloaded with their dependencies and everything is installed automatically in one shot. What I read from these three strategies you described is like you would no longer able to package your *ARs with all the required deployment plans. Is that so? why would you be able to package all XMLs in a plugin but not in WAR or JAR ... If someone gives you an EAR as you say then that's all you have, an EAR, not a plugin. If that person is able to provide you with a plugin then that person can also provide you with an EAR including all the app deployment plans as well as the plans (even scripts) for deploying other resources such as data sources and JMS connection factories, etc. As far as whether different kinds of things should be plugins, patches and updates can use the plugin infrastructure, so we might as well consider them. And I don't think that either sample applications or an LDAP server are "core functions" that should be included with the default Geronimo download. It's fine if we have an installer package that lets you select some extensions to include in your installation, but if you just grap a zip or tarball, I'd much prefer that it was very clean/lightweight with easy links to install additional functionality. So you are saying we are moving to have just one minimal distribution (little-G) and then we build our own custom Geronimo solution? I would really like to have a separate discussion about this approach. We should also expand more about what is the vision, strategy and goals for the Geronimo project and cast it in stone. Speaking just for myself, I have not had a good sense of direction lately. It might be good to spend some time revising and discussing some of the things we give as granted and some things we may have forgotten. Having just three bullets on the welcome page does not quite say it, does it!? :) Another use case is the minimal Tomcat server. It will be possible to start with the lightest-weight Geronimo installation and add JMS or DB pools or EJB or the full J2EE bundle via plugins. Without re-installing your apps or restarting the server! Let's say you have an existing web app and you want to add JMS. Much nicer to make the new version of your app depend on an ActiveMQ resource group and just redeploy the plugin for your app and have JMS features downloaded and added to your server at runtime, so in the process of the app upgrade the new server features go in, the new resources go it, and it all goes live. Bam! (if you favor Emeril.) No need to do a separate Geronimo/J2EE installation and repeat any configuration you may have done in your old installation and them add new resources in the console and only then deploy your new app and find out at that time whether you've done everything right and all the dependencies are there (oops, forgot the security realm). The jelly is starting to jell :D A few things to consider though: - Must consider offline installation. - You should be able to point to not just URLs but also a local directory. - You should be able to export just about anything in Geronimo as a plugin, no matter how that resource/app was originally deployed (portability) For "production" use, I think it'll be nice in many situations to transfer a module directly from one server to another without redeploying. For example, from a dev box to a QA box, perhaps. Make But that would not be production, that would be part of the development cycle, right!? absolutely sure you're using the same code. It won't always be appropriate, like if you require different EJB env-entry settings for the different environments, but it could handle something like your database pool po
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Just like gump descriptors...which builds all sorts of stuff with all sorts of licenses. -- dims On 5/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. > > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. > > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? Here's a alternative idea... How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...? Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here - just send a message to the mail list to have it included... Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that aren't from the ASF, etc. geir -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Aaron Mulder wrote: I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? Here's a alternative idea... How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...? Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here - just send a message to the mail list to have it included... Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that aren't from the ASF, etc. geir
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default. Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders. We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50 entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense? To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers the best selection to the user. If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly, we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser. There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases), which is also fine. Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components available to Geronimo users. Thanks, Aaron On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the Geronimo Plugins Site. * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability. * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the information contained on their site. Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed. However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up. I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default. Matt David Jencks wrote: > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. > > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a > server, so the process of building the server for your application can > be somewhat integrated into your build process. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: > >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" >> page. This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I >> haven't been able to find much at all. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? >> Where is the source for the site? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> > > > >
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
+1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default." On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the Geronimo Plugins Site. * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability. * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the information contained on their site. Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed. However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up. I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default. Matt David Jencks wrote: > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. > > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a > server, so the process of building the server for your application can > be somewhat integrated into your build process. > > thanks > david jencks > > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: > >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" >> page. This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I >> haven't been able to find much at all. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? >> Where is the source for the site? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> >> > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions. * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the Geronimo Plugins Site. * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability. * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the information contained on their site. Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed. However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up. I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the default. Matt David Jencks wrote: I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a server, so the process of building the server for your application can be somewhat integrated into your build process. thanks david jencks On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. Where is this site currently hosted? Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? Where is the source for the site? Thanks, John
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one. Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content? I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a server, so the process of building the server for your application can be somewhat integrated into your build process. thanks david jencks On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http:// svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. Where is this site currently hosted? Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? Where is the source for the site? Thanks, John
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
As far as whether plugins are valuable, here's an example to consider. Let's say someone gives you an EAR that contains a WAR and an EJB JAR, and uses JMS as well as a database pool. Your task is to get this running in Geronimo. Strategy 1: File-based (they provide EAR, you write 5 XML files) - install any required 3rd party JARs - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the DB pool - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the JMS resources - deploy all those in some sensible order, each with the accompanying JAR file (the TranQL RAR and ActiveMQ RAR for the resources) Strategy 2: Use the console to your advantage (they provide EAR, you write 3 XML files) - install any required 3rd party JARs - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR - use the console to configure, test, and deploy the DB pool - use the console to configure and deploy the JMS resources - deploy the application Strategy 3: Install from a plugin (they provide plugin) - point Geronimo to the application plugin. Application, DB Pool, and JMS resources are all downloaded with their dependencies and everything is installed automatically in one shot. As far as whether different kinds of things should be plugins, patches and updates can use the plugin infrastructure, so we might as well consider them. And I don't think that either sample applications or an LDAP server are "core functions" that should be included with the default Geronimo download. It's fine if we have an installer package that lets you select some extensions to include in your installation, but if you just grap a zip or tarball, I'd much prefer that it was very clean/lightweight with easy links to install additional functionality. Another use case is the minimal Tomcat server. It will be possible to start with the lightest-weight Geronimo installation and add JMS or DB pools or EJB or the full J2EE bundle via plugins. Without re-installing your apps or restarting the server! Let's say you have an existing web app and you want to add JMS. Much nicer to make the new version of your app depend on an ActiveMQ resource group and just redeploy the plugin for your app and have JMS features downloaded and added to your server at runtime, so in the process of the app upgrade the new server features go in, the new resources go it, and it all goes live. Bam! (if you favor Emeril.) No need to do a separate Geronimo/J2EE installation and repeat any configuration you may have done in your old installation and them add new resources in the console and only then deploy your new app and find out at that time whether you've done everything right and all the dependencies are there (oops, forgot the security realm). For "production" use, I think it'll be nice in many situations to transfer a module directly from one server to another without redeploying. For example, from a dev box to a QA box, perhaps. Make absolutely sure you're using the same code. It won't always be appropriate, like if you require different EJB env-entry settings for the different environments, but it could handle something like your database pool points to a different DB in each environment but the app always points to the same database pool name. Finally, I think plugins will be pretty effective for examples since they minimize the number of steps to get a group of related things installed. It's certainly possible to pack a lot into a single EAR if you're sufficiently clever about it, but with plugins it should be easier to have 1-stop installs for whatever modules you want people to have to work through things. There are even plugin lists so you can install 10 otherwise unrelated things in one bundle. No good if you want to teach them how to write a deployment plan, but hey. Thanks, Aaron On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server. We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY. For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I think it is a bad move. We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such as (I am intentionally not including resources): 1. Geronimo modules 2. Sample applications 3. User applications 4. Vendor applications This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following the order from the list: Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribut
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
+1 to "First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented.". I guess the idea is similar (same?) as people putting up sites for their Eclipse plugins. So +1 from me. +1 to set up an ASF site for "our" plugins and make that the default. Where "our" implies not just Geronimo but any other ASF project that want to do a plugin as well. Just like the LDAP one. I can think of an Axis2/Tuscany/Synapse/Ode/etc... plugins for automatic deploy of our artifacts. -- dims On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server. We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY. For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I think it is a bad move. We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such as (I am intentionally not including resources): 1. Geronimo modules 2. Sample applications 3. User applications 4. Vendor applications This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following the order from the list: Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute a patch/update to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable solution). We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative, the Apache Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site for configuring your own plugins site. But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example) and you have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality. If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance? In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this will became the method of choice for installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very likely that the command line tool will be the most popular alternative. As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo it is probably that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like with the Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates, but we wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!? In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the security (if needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity of the plugins to be installed. Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy should be revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier. Cheers! Hernan Aaron Mulder wrote: > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please, > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you > describe your position? > > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as > possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the > primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to > offer our users the best of all available plugins. > > Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source > code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by > Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those > builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However, > the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the > packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside > the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins. > > And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons > to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo > features or distribution model. > > Thanks, >Aaron > > On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are >> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that >> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the >>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server. We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY. For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I think it is a bad move. We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such as (I am intentionally not including resources): 1. Geronimo modules 2. Sample applications 3. User applications 4. Vendor applications This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following the order from the list: Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute a patch/update to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable solution). We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative, the Apache Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site for configuring your own plugins site. But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example) and you have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality. If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance? In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this will became the method of choice for installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very likely that the command line tool will be the most popular alternative. As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo it is probably that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like with the Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates, but we wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!? In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the security (if needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity of the plugins to be installed. Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy should be revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier. Cheers! Hernan Aaron Mulder wrote: I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please, let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you describe your position? I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to offer our users the best of all available plugins. Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However, the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins. And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo features or distribution model. Thanks, Aaron On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the matter further. Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out. Regards, Alan Dain Sundstrom wrote: > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default. > > -dain > > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote: >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please, let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you describe your position? I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to offer our users the best of all available plugins. Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However, the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins. And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo features or distribution model. Thanks, Aaron On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the matter further. Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out. Regards, Alan Dain Sundstrom wrote: > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default. > > -dain > > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote: >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. >>> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on >>> it later today. >>> >> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >>> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting. >>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? >>> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL >>> open source and non-open source plugins. >>> >> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's >> personal site. We need consensus on this. >> Where is the source for the site? >>> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin >>> source is at Apache. >>> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. >> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC,
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the matter further. Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out. Regards, Alan Dain Sundstrom wrote: I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default. -dain On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on it later today. I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. Where is this site currently hosted? Erin's currently donating the hosting. Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL open source and non-open source plugins. The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's personal site. We need consensus on this. Where is the source for the site? The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin source is at Apache. The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this has gone about is not community focused. I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before implementing it. I would like to hear what others think about this. Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default. -dain On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on it later today. I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. Where is this site currently hosted? Erin's currently donating the hosting. Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL open source and non-open source plugins. The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's personal site. We need consensus on this. Where is the source for the site? The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin source is at Apache. The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this has gone about is not community focused. I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before implementing it. I would like to hear what others think about this. Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I am one of those who just found it out by testing and documenting the console. I could not find any reference anywhere, just a few svn commit. I guess most of the questions will be addressed when we discuss it here on the dev list but in the mean time, Aaron could you please share some info about the whole plugins philosophy/implementation so I can add it to the documentation. Thanks Cheers! Hernan Jeff Genender wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on it later today. I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. Where is this site currently hosted? Erin's currently donating the hosting. Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL open source and non-open source plugins. The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's personal site. We need consensus on this. Where is the source for the site? The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin source is at Apache. The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this has gone about is not community focused. I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before implementing it. I would like to hear what others think about this. Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I want to apologize for this email I sent...the address info came from "whois geronimoplugins.com" and felt that even though its public information, that in retrospect it was probably not a good idea to paste it in the email. I was just asking about the ownership information and did not mean anything offensive by this. My sincere apologies to the Mulders. Jeff Jeff Genender wrote: > I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I > miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows: > >Administrative Contact: > Mulder, > None > > x, x > United States > (000) 000- Fax -- > >Technical Contact: > Mulder, > None > > x, x > United States > (000) 000- Fax -- > > Will this be discussed and will the domain's ownership be given to > Apache? I hope this will involve the community, all the way from > source, to look and feel, to how/what/where its hosted. > > Jeff > > John Sisson wrote: >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a >> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. >> This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't >> been able to find much at all. >> Where is this site currently hosted? >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? >> Where is the source for the site? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I should mention that the layout of the plugins is just that of a Maven 2 repository, and the current plugins are configured to use ibiblio as a secondary site for downloading JARs that are dependencies. You can also point the console at another Geronimo server, which is configured at act as a Maven 2 repository for this purpose. Thanks, Aaron On 5/1/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a >> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. >> This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't >> been able to find much at all. > > No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions > at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in > the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing > the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it > gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with > some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on > it later today. > I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. >> Where is this site currently hosted? > > Erin's currently donating the hosting. > >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? > > No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, > including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site > for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL > open source and non-open source plugins. > The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's personal site. We need consensus on this. >> Where is the source for the site? > > The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the > Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just > need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has > hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new > plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin > source is at Apache. > > The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open > source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, > we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want > to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part > -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this has gone about is not community focused. I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before implementing it. I would like to hear what others think about this. Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a >> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. >> This was introduced in >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . >> >> I have a few questions: >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't >> been able to find much at all. > > No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions > at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in > the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing > the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it > gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with > some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on > it later today. > I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise. >> Where is this site currently hosted? > > Erin's currently donating the hosting. > >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? > > No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, > including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site > for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL > open source and non-open source plugins. > The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's personal site. We need consensus on this. >> Where is the source for the site? > > The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the > Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just > need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has > hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new > plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin > source is at Apache. > > The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open > source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, > we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want > to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part > -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this has gone about is not community focused. I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before implementing it. I would like to hear what others think about this. Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
On 5/1/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . I have a few questions: Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't been able to find much at all. No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on it later today. Where is this site currently hosted? Erin's currently donating the hosting. Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins, including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL open source and non-open source plugins. Where is the source for the site? The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin source is at Apache. The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however, we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves. Bottom line, I feel strongly that we need a wide-ranging plugin ecosystem, like many other plugin-based projects that come to mind, and due to redistribution limitations it doesn't seem workable to host it at Apache. Our goal here is not to create a little fiefdom, but to provide the widest possible set of plugins to the Geronimo community, in an easy to reach fashion. Thanks, Aaron
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows: Administrative Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] None 706 Larkspur Lane Warrington, Pennsylvania 18976 United States (000) 000- Fax -- Technical Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] None 706 Larkspur Lane Warrington, Pennsylvania 18976 United States (000) 000- Fax -- Will this be discussed and will the domain's ownership be given to Apache? I hope this will involve the community, all the way from source, to look and feel, to how/what/where its hosted. Jeff John Sisson wrote: > I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a > default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page. > This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev . > > I have a few questions: > > Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't > been able to find much at all. > Where is this site currently hosted? > Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out? > Where is the source for the site? > > Thanks, > > John > >
