Mark thanks for your comments Firstly, even if I am not an active committer of owb currently, as a founder and pmc member of the project, I am a keen observer of the project and have some words to say for the future of owb
I am not a blocker of such initiative as Meecrowave but you are killing and diverting the owb as a main project (it is not just a subproject, it has own webpage, own release cycle, own issues etc like an another tlp project) For the tomcat integration , we had just been implenting plugins that allows to run owb in tomcat and openejb but they are not like a Meecrowave (they are the really subcomponents of owb). Then anybody can implement a new project based on owb, create own webpage and say that it is a subproject? For the Tomee, it is really another story. One can say lot more about it but I do not want to get into to complicate the discussion. Just look at the Apache Geronimo destiny. Then you think to convert project name from owb to meecrowave like openejb to tomee? I am just saying the follow the ASF rules correctly and for the benefit of the community. Why not create a incubator proposal to implement such microprofile server runtime environment? And also future wise, independent of owb and work with any cdi, also implements microprofile specification? We can work together to write such incubator proposal Also I missed the board report you mentioned, could you provide the link? Thanks Gurkan > On 26 Jun 2017, at 11:01, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gurkan, you probably missed something in the 5 years you have been inactive > in OWB. > You are basically years late with discussing Meecrowave. We have discussed > and decided this on the public mailing lists long ago. > > And we basically have Meecrowave since even much longer than that! We didn't > bundle it, but we provide install scripts to 'enrich' Apache Tomcat with OWB > since many years now. > >> We can also bring this issue in a board report and getting advice from the >> board > > We ALREADY checked our approach with the board and got the OK. This is really > similar than TomEE which started as sub project of OpenEJB. It is perfectly > fine with the foundation! > You probably missed all this work due to your absence. Though I'd like to > state that I'd really happy if you'd become active again in OWB! > > As Romain already explained: > TomEE is based on OpenEJB and will always be. > Meecrowave is heavily based on OWB and will always be. > > We just separated it out into an own project because we heavily rely on > Tomcat and would love to not mix up the release cycles of Tomcat and OWB core. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > >> Am 25.06.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Gurkan Erdogdu >> <[email protected]>: >> >> Hi all >> >> As I said earlier , Meecrowave project needs to be seperated from owb, it >> has own project page, codebase, issues, release cycle etc. There are two >> options in here either Tomee subproject or new in incubator project. My >> binding vote will be -1 for such release otherwise. I know that incubator >> projects needs much more admin work but from my opinion this is the way of >> introducing such new project in ASF >> >> Regards >> >> Gurkan >> >>> On 17 Jun 2017, at 20:38, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi folks! >>> >>> We are finished with implementing all CDI-2.0 features and now successfully >>> pass the standalone TCK! >>> A recent owb-2.0.0-SNAPSHOT is deployed to the Apache Snapshots repository >>> [1]. >>> This get's deployed via Jenkins each night. >>> >>> It would be great if you could try it out and give us some feedback! >>> We gonna release it somewhen next week. >>> >>> txs and LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> [1] https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/snapshots/ >> >
