However, as I understand it, this would involve the development of a contrib
module, not a set of patches to trunk. Therefore there's no issue of 'tying'
ZooKeeper to River.
I'm ill placed to judge whether this would be a contribution that many
people would use, but we should not reject it before we even discuss it on a
JIRA. It certainly seems like a positive contribution, and we have
historically been interested in integrating with service frameworks.
Brian, I'd encourage you to open a JIRA and contribute your code. We'll
discuss the technical merits there.
On 21 March 2010 09:38, Brian Murphy <btmurphy....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.