Hi Jeremy,
Sorry for the confusion, I probably should have started a new thread for
this mail as the mail I replied to was a mail I missed from months back
from a vote thread. The vote is actually over ( see dblevins mail at
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg26078.html ).
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
Hi all,
I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as
many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am
a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container
for Geronimo, things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users.
For example, a lot of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo. Most
don't know that OpenEJB is a standalone EJB container with more than 7
years under its belt. While this is a tragedy this is not the point I
am wishing to make so lets continue.
OpenEJB began life a long time ago. When Geronimo came along,
things took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB. Not only did the
mainstream development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer
and nearly stop but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about
this feeling of neglect. Geronimo took the best developers from
OpenEJB to build a better version of OpenEJB but it only builds and
runs inside of Geronimo. This again is a tragedy. I could go on but
I need to make a point.
It is my understanding that OpenEJB will be moving back to one
development stream (OpenEJB version 3) that will be used by Geronimo and
OpenEJB standalone, so the future should be much brighter as development
will all be focused in the one stream. Is this correct?
My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many
devoted developers. It is not tied to Geronimo. The fact that the
version within Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning
problem and should not be taken out on the OpenEJB developers. Many
of the developers, like myself, would love to see the Apache Software
Foundation open its doors to a mature and well-known EJB container to
call its own. The concerns about OpenEJB ties to Geronimo should not
keep a great product from being sponsored at the ASF.
Thanks for taking the time to explain what the concerns were, as I
wasn't sure if they were technical or project management concerns. I
look forward to seeing OpenEJB in the incubator.
Regards,
John
Take care,
Jeremy
P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
On 7/4/06, *John Sisson* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Alan,
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association
with
Geronimo?
Regards,
John
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB,
they are
> always concerned about its close association w/
Geronimo. However, it
> is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling
OpenEJB's
> strong reliance on Geronimo code.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Mohammed Nour wrote:
>> Hi All...
>>
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
separate
>> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
>> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>>
>>
>> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>>
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be
become a
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>
>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of
OpenEJB
>> during incubation
>>
>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during
incubation
>> as a
>> sub-project of Geronimo
>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>
>> +1 from me
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
