Jacek,
I like your honesty and your compassion for those using OpenEJB. :)
I think we all have the same common goal that that is to give OpenEJB users
more functionality while enticing those that may have left us to give us
another chance. Your feelings and concerns are very community driven and I
think that will be why OpenEJB is successful. You aren't happy with small
feature releases and long spans between releases and I think that is great.
I do think that David has a great approach lined up for us though where you
seem to disagree a bit. Where David speaks of 1.0 being similar to 0.9.2
may have sounded wrong but you both really said the same thing. I think
it's time to release OpenEJB 1.0 and get started on the new vision of where
this application can go. In regards to OpenEJB 2.0, I don't think we should
even look at OpenEJB 2.0 unless you are doing Geronimo stuff. OpenEJB 2.0
is Geronimo centric and as you both say, only provides EJB 2.1 capabilities.
In the event that OpenEJB 1.x capabilities not in the 2.x branch can be
merged into the 2.x branch we will cross that bridge when we get there.
Enough about that. I sense your frustration with the fact that OpenEJB
became stale when Geronimo began getting the developer time. It is a shame
that this happened and I do see where you are coming from. I do not think
we will have a very difficult time recovering from this if we devote time
and effor into adding features to OpenEJB 1.x in a timely fashion. That
being said, let me tell you my idea.
My idea of what we should do is release OpenEJB 1.0 now. It already
has enough features to be a 1.0 release so what's stopping us? Post 1.0 we
will work on EJB 2.1 support and other features like the JSR-107 (JCACHE)
integration. There are many useful features that could be integrated into
OpenEJB to bring it back into the limelight so that peope will again flock
to it for their EJB Container needs.
I am very excited with the drive and determination of this team.
David makes a good leader, and cheerleader for that matter, making this
effort something easier to attain than most project. Add that leadership to
a team of individuals with experience, compassion and the willingness to
join together for a cause and we have all it takes to get where we want to
go. We have more than enough work for all of us so let's get started. Take
care, Jeremy
-----Original Message-----
From: Jacek Laskowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 8:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [openejb-user] OpenEJB 3 -- where do you want the project
to go?
David Blevins wrote:
> - We have the 1.0 code which is pretty much the same as 0.9.2 with
> the addition of a Web Administration Console, EJB 2.0 Local
> Interface support, and an addition form of OpenEJB/Tomcat
> integration scoped at just the webapp level.
Hi Dave,
Let's start with complains first and then move on to some cheers and +1's :)
I don't like the statement. I feel that OpenEJB 0.9.2 is slightly
different than the upcoming 1.0 release and as such deserves its own
version - 1.0. Well, some earlier OpenEJB releases would deserve the 1.0
release, too, but since we decided otherwise that one does surely
deserve it.
> - We have the 2.0 code which is pretty much tied to Geronimo and has
> none of the features that existing OpenEJB users have come to
> expect: easy unit testing of ejbs; any form of tomcat integration;
> easy config files; tools to validate ejbs. It does have ejb 2.1
> functionality (webserivces, cmp2, mdbs).
That's great that OpenEJB 2 gives people EJB 2.1 support, but I don't
like it's nothing more and doesn't support any features of OpenEJB 1. As
it turned out we all (silently) agreed on the tight integration of
OpenEJB 2 and Geronimo, OpenEJB 2.0 should support Geronimo 1.0 without
any whistles and bells (= major changes) before certification. Once it's
done we could put our attention on things that are part of OpenEJB 1.0
and won't make into OpenEJB 2.0 - mostly the Tomcat integration, which
would lead to some OpenEJB 2.x releases. JSR 77/88 would be another
milestone to meet while in the 2.x tree.
> I've been very hesitant to release anything from the OpenEJB 2.0 tree
> as it is just going to work in the same way that OpenEJB 1 (0.9.2)
> does. The trick is also that all the resources on the project have
> focused solely on implementing 2.1 so we never seem to get to 1.0 either.
Well, not exactly. I'm the only one who left the ground and will cut it
finally. Let's see how much we can do this weekend.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> DIRECTION
>
> Here is where we need your feedback. This project exists for you
> guys, so we need to here from as many people as possible. The
> more the better.
>
> What if we just put out the 1.0 "as is" did minor bug fixes on it, but
> nothing major in terms of features.
-1. See my comments above.
> Admitted the 2.0 code is pretty
> much Geronimo's and just left it alone for the most part.
-1. See my comments above.
> 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 ;)
> David Blevins
Jacek
_
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of
the
message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
