Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-16 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 15, 2003, at 4:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 13 Dec 2003, at 22:22, Martin Poeschl wrote: what do you mean? the code works. it is used by other projects .. and basically development slowed down as the developers are waiting for the jcache spec ... so i don't think there is any

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-15 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 13 Dec 2003, at 22:22, Martin Poeschl wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote: hi henning you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've heard, i'd say that

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-13 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote: hi henning you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :) Hi, thanks. :-) I'm willing to subscribe to JCS

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-13 Thread Martin Poeschl
robert burrell donkin wrote: On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote: hi henning you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :) Hi, thanks. :-)

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-12 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote: hi henning you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :) Hi, thanks. :-) I'm willing to subscribe to JCS for watching the developers there and help them

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-11 Thread robert burrell donkin
: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I didn't even know that this is a turbine sub-sub project for quite some time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-10 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
be best. Aaron -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can see

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-10 Thread Aaron Smuts
I'll be available in January to get started. Let me know what is involved in a release. -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:51 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS I'd do

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 11:10, Christopher Lenz wrote: Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
, Aaron Smuts wrote: Sounds good. Less disruption on the way to a release would be best. Aaron -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS IMHO too complex

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 21:07, Costin Manolache wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote: snip Then maybe instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept: jakarta-bugs jakarta-announce jakarta-dev jakarta-pmc jakarta-ideas jakarta-site or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical question to ask based

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be very noisy, indeed. Szre. Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com) struts tomcat commons user 3115 2908 375 dev 759 1131 2112

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I didn't even know that this is a turbine sub-sub project for quite some time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_ fold it into the

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Christopher Lenz
Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig: Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the other commons components been overwhelmed by

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Aaron Smuts
Sounds good. Less disruption on the way to a release would be best. Aaron -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS IMHO too complex

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote: Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Aaron Smuts
There is also the problem of external dependencies ( if any ). At least some of the people on commons preffer commons as more-or-less standalone tools, that don't require a lot of 'framework'. I don't know JCS, but if it can be used as a standalone library - it would be great to get it

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 22:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: snip From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.* i think that it depends on what's meant by sub-sub-projects :) i'm happy for a single sub-project to create many

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Costin Manolache
robert burrell donkin wrote: On 4 Dec 2003, at 22:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: snip From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.* i think that it depends on what's meant by sub-sub-projects :) i'm happy for a

jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Henri Yandell
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of each sub-project, etc. If the distinction

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Phil Steitz
Henri Yandell wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote: Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of each sub-project, etc. If

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Raymond Racine
With regard to who is using JCS (or should!). We use it at http://www.officedepot.com Without it I doubt we would be ranked where we are on http://www.ecommercetimes.com/ectpi/ We added a new persisting backend based on an all Java version of gdbm. I found that in a very old version of w3c's

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
On 12/5/03 2:45 AM, Martin Poeschl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew C. Oliver wrote: So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the Turbiners really care about it. it is indirectly used by turbine ... that's why the discussion started ... it is used by torque,

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
You're kind of being excessively abrasive especially given that I'm just trying to understand the problem as a responsible PMC member. Given that I'm trying to find out about the subject despite having no ties to Turbine or JCS, I'd expect a little less of an obnoxious response. This post

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Costin Manolache
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote: Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the Turbiners really care about it. Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get flattened into Turbine and just consider it one more turbine service. However, if it DOES have a community or at the very least someone who loves

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the Turbiners really care about it. Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get flattened into Turbine and just consider it one more turbine service. +--+ | Don't

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote: Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project. +1 but direct drop

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Martin Poeschl
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the Turbiners really care about it. it is indirectly used by turbine ... that's why the discussion started ... it is used by torque, ojb, hibernate, ok, they are all db related .. but i still do

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Brian McCallister
OJB supports using JCS for distributed caching, but I don't know how many people actually use it (we don't). There is overlap between OJB and Turbine contributors Arrowhead ASP, a GPL ASP interpreter, ( http://www.tripi.com/arrowhead/ ) also uses JCS as I know the guy who wrote it =) OTOH I

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Martin Cooper wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: [I like Turbineers. :-) ] I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
IMHO the incubator is having some political difficulties at the moment and (from my experience of projects being incubated) it doesn't really help with gathering more developers. having read the thread so far, here's my feelings: 1. i feel strongly that JCS should not continue as a turbine

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henri Yandell
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote: (i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best option yet? My only worry with

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 19:28, Henri Yandell wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote: (i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Henri Yandell wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote: (i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best option yet? My

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Martin Poeschl
Daniel Rall wrote: Henri Yandell wrote: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote: (i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Aaron Smuts
The core of JCS is ready for a release. The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and remote sever. It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the others are optional. For each type of plugin there is

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henri Yandell
So your preference, as the development-community of JCS, is for a top-level-jakarta project, ie) at the log4j level? If so, we can take that up with the PMC and see what views there are. As the development community, your (and James) views count a lot, though the smallness of community is the

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
The lack of vibrant community is what points to Jakarta Commons as the more appropriate place, a place where a community could grow for JCS. I'd rather see JCS as a full sub-project, but without a community to support the software, it would be misplaced as such. Henri Yandell wrote: So your

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:17, Daniel Rall wrote: Jakarta Commons or the Incubator have been my preference for some time now. The Incubator seems like a more appropriate place, as JCS could use some life I was thinking about the incubator, too. But as projects failing to leave the incubator

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 08:17, Daniel Rall wrote: Martin Cooper wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: [I like Turbineers. :-) ] I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in Torque),

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-02 Thread Martin Poeschl
[ ] leave it within turbine [ ] move it to apache commons [ ] move it to jakarta commons [ ] move it to incubator [ ] something else (please specify)... [1] move it to jakarta [2] move it to db from my point of view jcs should be a jakarta (or db)

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Bill Barker
- Original Message - From: Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS On 11/30/03 6:57 PM, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: What do

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 1 Dec 2003, at 05:11, Scott Eade wrote: snip Without knowing too much, should perhaps JCS to db top level and JCS to db commons also be considered options? definitely :) Of the available options below I have selected jakarta commons more by excluding the other options than because of some

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Tim O'Brien
[ ] leave it within turbine [3] move it to apache commons [2] move it to jakarta commons [ ] move it to incubator [1] something else (please specify)... I think the ideal place for JCS is the DB Top Level Project. Second choice, Jakarta Commons, and

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Martin Cooper
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: [I like Turbineers. :-) ] I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to the same

[POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread robert burrell donkin
(we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.) some information about Turbine-JCS: * JCS has no release * other apache products depend on JCS *

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Dirk Verbeeck
People looking for java components at apache look first at jakarta commons. I already referred some people asking for a cache component on the commons-user mailing list. Looking at the number of messages (on the turbine-jcs-* lists) moving to the incubator or somewhere else to become a TLP is

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote: sorry, missed one and probably [ ] leave JCS within turbine [ ] JCS to apache commons [ ] JCS to jakarta commons [ ] JCS to jakarta top level [ ] JCS to incubator [ ] something else (please specify)... ps before i get flamed (once again),

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Glen Stampoultzis
At 10:08 AM 1/12/2003, you wrote: [ ] leave JCS within turbine [ ] JCS to apache commons [X] JCS to jakarta commons [ ] JCS to jakarta top level [ ] JCS to incubator [ ] something else (please specify)... Glen Stampoultzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Conor MacNeill
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:41 am, robert burrell donkin wrote: (we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.) Have we asked the JCS developers what

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
What do the turbine people want? On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote: On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote: sorry, missed one and probably [ ] leave JCS within turbine [ ] JCS to apache commons [ ] JCS to jakarta commons [ ] JCS to jakarta top level [ ]

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Sam Ruby
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: What do the turbine people want? If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level project, taking JCS with it. On

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Nov 30, 2003, at 9:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: What do the turbine people want? If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Scott Eade
robert burrell donkin wrote: (we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.) some information about Turbine-JCS: * JCS has no release * other