Yes, I gonna tackle this with a broader explanation. Btw, I don't agree with the 2 weeks. If you would apply this rule to other topics then TomEE8 would clearly not happen. This is a discussion where everyone has a say and should be finished with either a clear outcome or a standard vote if there are different opinions.
I'll copy over the arguments from the mail thread to the private@geronimo.a.o and private@tomee.a.o mailing lists from 2018-08-11. The discussion span for over 2 months back then. And of course the focus back then was about the 'future of Geronimo'. Please note that I'll only copy my own words as this was a private conversation and others need to copy their own words to public lists. -------- Again my argument: *) There should be a go-to place for such reusable enterprise parts at Apache. Like javamail, the tx-mgr, the specs, config, xbean, etc. *) We should keep the o.a.geronimo.specs groupId (would be tons of work for downstream projects to change it) and we cannot have multiple PMCs using this groupId and package name. *) Those reusable parts should have an own marketing name. We could reuse XBean or find a better one. Why? Geronimo is associated with a big and dead EE server, TomEE is associated with an alive EE server. Better, but not much. It should be clear that those reusable components are actually independent of each of the 3 projects. *) The reusablel parts each also have a separate livecycle. *) If we really shutdown Geronimo then all the active components should be moved to another project, the rest goes to the attic. *) I totally don't care which PMC does the organisatorial thing as long as it is active. That would be a plus for the TomEE PMC as it is reasonably more active. We did not even get enough +1 for the last votes over here. That's not making me happy. So far we have a few possible solutions: 1.) Keep Geronimo but burry the G server and change all the site, etc to make it sure that the public understands that G is now essentially something else. Not sure if this works 2.) Same as 1 plus rename the Geronimo project to some other name (but still keep a.o.geronimo.specs). 3.) Create a new PMC with the usable components 4.) Move the usable parts to Commons 5.) Move the usable components to a disctinct area under the TomEE PMC, but with a separate brand name. It should _not_ be TomEE components, but something catchy What I do not want is to only get a half baked solution. Either we solve this fully or not at all. -------- Note: The outcome of this thread was that the Geronimo Application Server got retired in the meantime and Geronimo focuses on delivering reusable components in the EE space. I'm happy to evaluate this again and move over all those parts to TomEE. But only IF we find a way to make TomEE a viable Umbrella project. What I do NOT want to happen: * have components which are not reusable in other projects but tightly coupled to the TomEE Application Server We have tons of projects who make use of the Geronimo components. Think about the geronimo-transactionmanager. It's used in OpenJPA, CXF, ActiveMQ, and even many external projects. The same will happens (or already happened) with the Geronimo based Miroprofile spec implementations. * have users getting confused about the name 'TomEE'. Does it refer to the project? Does it refer to the App Server? Does it refer to some components which might be used on other app servers even? We had this problem in MyFaces. That was the number one reason why things like myfaces-ext-cdi (CODI) and my faces-ext-validation only had limited reach. If I'd got just one dollar for every time I got the feedback that 'CODI looks great, but sadly it only runs on MyFaces, but we have Mojarra'. That is the number one reason why we extracted CODI out of MyFaces and created DeltaSpike. The same happened with openwebbeans-test-control. The API also worked perfectly fine with other containers. But nobody adopted it until we moved the code 1:1 to DeltaSpike as deltaspike-cdictrl. Oh and Geronimo had this problem as well. Of course, now that the G app server is officially dead this is a bit easier to explain. That leads me to the following 2 points which we must solve: * Make it sure that those components are totally independent from the 'TomEE Appliation Server' part * Make that fact clear to users. So we need a different brand name for this part. That could even be 'Geronimo Components' hosted at the TomEE project. I'd also keep the org.apache.geronimo package name and groupId. They are widely used and esatablished. Of course this requires 2 things: 1.) the TomEE community wants this to happen 2.) the Geronimo community wants this to let go. Given that almost all of the active G people are also TomEE committers I think that point 2 is a rather low barrier. So and now give me some feedback pretty please ;) LieGrue, strub PS: those who have access to the Geroniom lists please read up on the old discussions to gather the full picture. > Am 13.02.2018 um 07:32 schrieb David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: > > Mark you'd like us to talk about making TomEE an umbrella or not. I think > it's probably best you frame up and lead the discussion as you're the most > passionate about it and I won't do it justice. > > I'd like to suggest that we give it two weeks. If the conversation dies out, > we need to read it as lack of interest and not stop people's work. > > > -David >
