Giancarlo Berner wrote:
> Hi Andy
>
> In a way I am surprised to read your E-mail. Especially since you
> claim to be a contributor to JBoss and XDoclet. I would imagine that
> you have a deep knowledge into Java/JSP and App Server in general.
> Each Community, as the Magnolia one, NEEDS people like you to help
> them go ahead. So it's really sad you want to jump off.
I was a former JBoss contributor:
http://www.cenqua.com/clover/eg/jboss/report/org/jboss/management/j2ee/RMI_IIOPResource.html
Well, I did contribute to Magnolia see:
http://www.magnolia.info/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=InstallMagnolia21OnJBoss4
Still, I cannot work on all open-source projects and so I have to be
picky about that. Being burned by "who made the money" when JBoss was
sold I am especially worried how a commercial entity that control the
project is handling the community and that is the fact that let me jump off.
> But what really surprises me is that with your undoubtedly qualified
> developer knowledge, you did not seem focused enough to find the few
> reasons for Magnolia to move from 2.1 to 3.0. You definitely would
> have separated the Magnolia APPLICATION from the Jackrabbit
> REPOSITORY. Yes, the guys at Magnolia did a tremendous job in updating
> the Magnolia CMS. You will not find anything similar and as easy to
> use (and for free!). Magnolia would definitely be up-dateable easily,
> if it was only for Magnolia! But the reason why Magnolia 2.1 and 3.0
> are not compatible is the CONTENT REPOSITORY API FOR JAVA TECHNOLOGY
> (aka JSR 170 standard). So unfortunately the reason for not being
> compatible is NOT the CMS, but the changes the repository had gone
> through! On the other side you also must accept (in fact, we all
> appreciate that) that Magnolia is growing up. Magnolia is very common
> among large enterprises and therefore has to meet the according
> requirements. These enterprise specific enhancements ("Modules") have
> been separated from the Community Edition, simply to not confuse the
> Community. The core is absolutely the same for CE and EE!
If that is the case I don't see the point why Magnolia Ltd. is charging
for the migration tool. The company already did the job so why should I
do it again. If you really want to get me to contribute then make my
life easier so I might have some time to contribute back.
I am not confusing the CC and the EE. I, you and Magnolia Ltd. wants to
make money and I have no problems with that. But going to charge the
open-source community and all its users for a simple and one-time
migration tool is telling the community that "we got your balls and now
we can squeeze you". Maybe not that malicious but that is the general
direction.
> I myself was also disappointed that I could not migrate easily from
> 2.1 to 3.0 (and I got many projects of all sorts of sizes) but we
> really can't blame Magnolia International for that. In fact, we can
> not blame the guys from the JSR 170 project either, since the changes
> to the repository were necessary and important (but made it
> incompatible to prior versions).
Still, Magnolia Ltd. has a tool and takes advantage of it. Changes
happens and I don't mind it. But if Magnolia Ltd. wants to keep the
community alive to give the tool away for free is a small price to pay.
> However, Andy, if I would have invested all the work you did for your
> company's website (seems like 2 years) I would not give up that
> easily. In our business we know that there are fifty ways to solve a
> problem! One solution would be getting the "Packager" from Ralph
> Hirning, another one, what I have done, is to write a small "Node
> Transfer" servlet. The servlet simply reads from one repository and
> writes into the other. Most websites I migrated where done in 4 to 8
> hours... Knowing, that the "incompatibility" is due to the repository
> might help you figure out a migration path. If not, just drop me an
> E-Mail and I gladly will help you find a way.
Again, that is the point. I am not happy that a commercial entity that
controls the project is taking advantage of the fact that I have either
to scrap my investment or to pay for a tool. Of course I could go ahead
and write it myself but I do not get it that if it is already done why
do it have to waste my time with it.
Currently I am working on fixing bugs in the JDK that goes into 1.7 and
that is satisfying but not writing a stupid tool to migrate.
> But what I don't agree with, is your assumption that Magnolia "has
> lost touch" with the community! Magnolia has still one of the largest
> communities! There are more than 150'000 Magnolia downloads worldwide.
> So assuming, that a quarter of the downloads have turned into
> projects, results in more than 37'000 installations. Magnolia is
> really very easy to use and therefore users do not have many reasons
> to write to the user list. On the other hand the repository and
> Magnolia have been packed with so many features and utilities, that it
> reached a degree of complexity which does not anymore allow a
> developer to just quickly dig into some source and develop a web site.
> BTW: there were several discussions and suggestions in the dev and
> user list on how to migrate to Magnolia 3.0!
Well, I don't know how you know that there are 37k installations because
at JBoss we never knew who many installation of JBoss there out there. I
am just wondering where is an integrated Wiki, Blog etc because that is
what the other open-source CMS provide. Finally I could not find any
discussion in the users list on how to migrate to 3.0.
> Well, too bad you want to leave the community. But take it as a
> personal advise: I would reconsider your decision. There is no Open
> Source CMS out there which comes close to the "dream-team"
> Magnolia/Content Repository. The power is in the integration of an
> easy to use CMS and a powerful, hierarchically organized, repository.
Maybe you should get a reality check. The only reason I am still with
Magnolia is the fact that it runs fine in JBoss, that it is Java and
that it is website focused in contrast the other open-source projects
are more portal focused. So far Magnolia did fine what I needed it for
but any migration was a hassle. This time it lost faith in the Magnolia
Ltd. as the controlling entity and so I cut my looses now rather than
being charged again and again down the road.
One personal advice from me: please check out the other open-source CMS
applications just to get a feel for the reality. It is great to believe
in a project one is working for but one should never forget to look over
ones shoulders.
-Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------
for list details see
http://documentation.magnolia.info/docs/en/editor/stayupdated.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
