On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:07:58PM +0200, Jacek Laskowski wrote: > David Blevins wrote: > >GOALS > > > >I think top priority is getting OpenEJB back in the hands of OpenEJB > >users. At this point I don't think this means giving you all a 1.0, > > It's not fair. How long should people wait till the next major OPenEJB > release? Another year or so? I object. There're features in OpenEJB 1.0 > that should see a light as soon as possible.
What I was trying to say was that cutting a 1.0 is not enough, that people deserve everything they like about 1.0 plus the EJB 2.1 functionality we promised them. I wasn't trying to say we should not cut a 1.0. It just came out awkward. > >you deserve the EJB 2.1 functionality you were promised and the great > >things you like about 0.9.2. Further, unless we get a jump on > >starting an EJB 3 implementation focused on existing OpenEJB users, > >we'll be in the same position we were in on the EJB 2.1 code. And... > > > >we start on OpenEJB 3 by taking the 1.0 (pretty much the same as > >0.9.2), merging in parts of the 2.0 code, and (here is the important > >part) ensuring that the entire time the code we write is code you can > >use! We will never drop a feature, even temporarily. This is also > >where we would develop EJB 3 compliance. We will start from code that > >users are now using and always keep, maintain, and improve those > >features as we add new features. Releasing early and often. > > Hurray! We'll be back on track again. That deserves my +1000000! > > >How does that sound? > > That's incredible you're asking. That's brilliant idea. Count me in when > you start development. > > >Here is how I am imagining we could do that technically: > > > > 1. Take the OpenEJB 1.0 code and kill all the ugly static code and > > make it IoC with the gbean.org kernel. The gbean kernel is an > > IoC kernel compatible with both Spring and Geronimo. So people > > using OpenEJB could leverage (and write) both Spring components > > and Geronimo components. See http://gbean.org > > +1 > > It seems very natural to me to leverage a IoC, and if it's Dain's work > (gbean.org) I fully believe it's worth its time at least to give it a > shot. We'll see how much effors it will require to see if we're in the > right direction. > > > 3. All EJB 3 work would be done as components and made available to > > you in various forms of stability as things go along, meanwhile > > that won't slow down the entire OpenEJB 3 set of code. > > Or better, make all of the components available to download as we > envision Geronimo should work. > > >Again, the overall goal is to start with code you are using now and > >ensure that when we take a step forward, we aren't leaving you behind > >by removing things you depend on (tomcat integration, testability, > >embeddibility, ease of use, etc). > > That was always my goal and I think OpenEJB's, but it seems we lost > control so let's turn it back on track. > > >FEEDBACK > > > >So here is where we need as many people as possible to shout out and > >say "yes" or "no" or anything else you want to add. > > (shouting) YES. > > >>>>> Is this where you want the project to go? <<<< > > (I think you don't mind me telling so...) > > You must be joking, right? Do you think that people really care about > OpenEJB any longer once OpenEJB itself hasn't taken care of them for so > long? I don't think so. Don't be surprised to see merely 2-3 replies tpo > your inquiry as we have already broken the rules at first. I think what > you've proposed is a way to bring people back to the project and do > everything so credit where credit's due. Geronimo is a way to do it in a > short term, but let's make it more neutral and let OpenEJB loose off > Geronimo ;) +1 Thanks, David
