My take on this.... I like the recognition that we need to grow the community, and I like the realization that we can not support infinite source code with a volunteer community that does not grow. I think there are some good kernels of ideas in this discussion. In general Pekko could support external development that may or may not become part of core by providing a page that links to projects that are extending Pekko but not part of Pekko core. In this case the code mongo persistence library would be mentioned on that page. This gives external projects a chance to develop a supporting community and show that there is demand for the component. I also think there is an opportunity here to invite the mongo persistence developer to come help get the rest of the modules up to snuff and out the door as released so we can take the time to consider the mongo persistence module properly. So in short, if someone comes with a package give them an opportunity to show they are committed to Pekko and give them a place to show that there is a community behind their contribution.
I have to agree with earlier writers in this thread that there is just not the band width to take on another module at this point in the Pekko development. cycle. I also wonder if we should take some sort of poll or have some metric to determine which of the remaining modules has the most demand/support. In my opinion if an existing module (pekko-foo) has lower demand than the demand for mongo-persistence then I think mongo-persistence should come in before pekko-foo. This paragraph all hypothetical because we don't have a measure of demand/support (that I know of). So in short, encourage the mongo-persistence developer to join the work to get core out while evaluating whether there is enough demand/support for mongo-persistence to include it. Claude
