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
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
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
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. :-)
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
: [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
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
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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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),
[ ] 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)
- 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
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
[ ] 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
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
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
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),
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/
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
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
[ ]
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
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
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
47 matches
Mail list logo
