Let's sum this up. Would the TomEE project make sense as a body to host such 'ee commons' modules? Yes, that is one possible option and might work out fine.
Should those 'ee commons' modules get called TomEE-bla? NO, of course not. Hack, didn't we learn anything from the past? If some say we should not do that at Geronimo because people will confuse the reusable parts (G-server independent) with the Geronimo server itself. So what is different to doing the same at TomEE? If it is still called TomEE then people will get confused the reusable components with the TomEE server again. There must really be a clear distinction between the TomEE server and those reusable components, otherwise we will have the same confusion as there was with G. With the difference that the Geronimo Server is about to get moved to the attic and thus there is now _only_ the reusable parts left at Geronimo. And the people who showed some activity are committer at Geronimo a long time already. And no worries, the Geronimo server is dead and will not make a comeback. TomEE is MUCH better and modern. But otoh it doesn't make sense for TomEE to become a flying-train-boat-bicycle. The TomEE mark is also NOT that important. What really IS important are the people! LieGrue, strub > Am 13.08.2017 um 23:09 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]>: > > Le 13 août 2017 21:25, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > In all honesty, while the ASF as a whole doesn't have a true strategy, or > expect projects to work to benefit each other, I do think in this situation > it makes a lot of sense to think about the various communities at the ASF > and do some thinking around what makes the most sense for a user of Apache > products (independent of past, present, future employers). > > There are some PMCs that exist to support the implementation of a Java EE > specification. There are other PMCs that support Java EE but also come up > with very easy ways to make their product work independent of Java EE. By > being independent of any specific application server, projects like > Johnzon, OpenWebBeans can go ahead and be leveraged in other products. > This gives those products broader reach by being fully independent. By > putting Sheldon and Chatterbox directly into the TomEE PMC's hands, you are > closely tying the products together. > > One other idea that I heard throw around was creating an EE commons type of > project. It could handle these off to the side projects that are really > maintained by the ASF #usualSuspects and make it clear that they really > work across many different platforms, similar to the original premise > behind Apache DeltaSpike. On the flip side, I'm not convinced that > Geronimo is that project either. > > > Hmm, if not then G should have moved to attic. It is here exactly for that > purpose. > > Anyway back to the original topic: it sounds like faking tomee figures > ...to fake them. Probably better to enter these projects by another way for > tomee and themselves like incubator, the EE umbrella project or other - > keeping them on github can also makes sense estimating their future > activity maybe, no? > > > > John > > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:58 PM David Blevins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We can keep any existing ssh code if we like. >> >> In terms of why TomEE, as mentioned here’s are some of the benefits: >> >> - show the TomEE ecosystem is a bit bigger than just the server >> - provide a clear pattern for “crazy new ideas” to start here that could >> potentially benefit TomEE or other EE related-projects >> - more opportunities to earn commit >> - give the community a boost >> >> We used to get a lot of committers in based on EJB improvements, however >> since that spec has slowed and is not moving forward, I think we need more >> opportunities for people to earn commit. >> >> In terms of G. Obviously as co-founder of the project and someone who >> spent 9+ years on it full-time under 3 different employers, I have a >> different relationship to the name. I think it’s great there’s new blood >> in G, including you, imagining a new future for it. But my heart is > really >> in TomEE. When I look at Geronimo I see my past, when I look at TomEE I >> see my future. >> >> Everyone is entitled to his or her own goals, hopes and dreams, I just >> want to be clear where my heart is at. >> >> >> -- >> David Blevins >> http://twitter.com/dblevins >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> >>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Does it mean we drop the ssh module? >>> >>> Why ot going incubator to promote the portability of these projects? >>> (Whatever you do, if tomee subproject it is perceived as tomee bound). >> Are >>> they too small? >>> >>> Why not geronimo subprojects since it is the official umbrella project >> now >>> - vs tomee is not until we rediscuss it transprojects. >>> >>> Really sounds weird to me to try to push it in tomee when we agreed to > do >>> it in G weeks ago, what am I missing? >>> >>> Le 11 août 2017 22:58, "David Blevins" <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >>> >>>>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 3:20 AM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Reusable components make sense they are clearly distinctable. The part >>>> which contains that reusable components imo must get a different brand >> name >>>> than TomEE. >>>> >>>> Sheldon would stay named Sheldon. Chatterbox would stay named >>>> Chatterbox. They’d get their own JIRAs. They’d just be hosted here on >> you >>>> could get to them via the tomee.apache.org website. >>>> >>>>> The problem here is: TomEE does a really bad job in pointing out these >>>> ties! If TomEE would kind of cumulate this progress and make it clear >> that >>>> this makes it into TomEE, then it would be much clearer that there is > no >>>> standstill but actually tons of activity. >>>> >>>> I think this is a great topic you should lead. >>>> >>>> >>>> -David >>>> >>>> >> >>
