On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jonathan Reichhold < jonathan.reichh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Apache River is dying from lack of updates. Hmm, I suppose "dying" is a matter of opinion, or one's perspective. If you're talking about the lack of an official release, no argument there. But, for what it's worth, that might be more a function of the many differing opinions being voiced by the various parties interested in that project; which has driven some away, but has been viewed by others as healthy discourse. For example, because the river codebase provides an infrastructure rather than a specific application, and is fairly mature and stable, some of the river meritocracy feel that the project should move more slowly than application based apache projects typically move, whereas others feel just the opposite. I generally leave these sort of arguments for others to worry about though. I'm usually more interested in whether the code serves the needs of the project I'm on (which in this case, both river and zookeeper do). Fortunately, the project I'm currently on doesn't need any major new features from river. The numerous patches and updates that have been feeding into the pending 2.1.1 release (currently under vote) have been more than enough to serve our needs, and have been put to quite good use. But of course, your needs and experiences may be different. > not sure tying to a project which hasn't moved since 2008 is a > good idea for a contribution to Zookeeeper. Okay, thanks for the honest answer, Jonathan. This is what we were trying to find out by posing the original question to the Zookeeper community. Since we don't want to be disruptive, we'll simply continue developing the code in our own namespace. No harm, no foul. Thanks, Brian