RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk
> is something like this:

> - cleanup the code/doc/install

I would expect that at worst those would be early doings during Incubation.

> - rework a clear internal separation between AjaxTk and ZCS
> - adjust internal dev processes
> - start building a long term external community

Those should happen by virtue of Incubation.

> Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps

Actually, the second and third would happen by moving into the Incubator, and 
the first is something that multiple people could start to work on, once the 
code were moved into Subversion.

A fascination with brand seems to be your primary concern, but if we end up 
killing the project because it doesn't evolve properly, that would make any 
such effort to leverage the Apache brand seriously counter-productive.  Ask 
around for a favorable reaction to the "Avalon" project.  Most people have a 
negative view of it, and anything it touched, despite the fact that the only 
problem with the project was a poisoned community.

As an aside to Andrew Clark, acceptance is a policy decision, not a technical 
one; there isn't a veto option.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Craig L Russell]

On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote: As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk is something like this: - cleanup the code/doc/install so that Tk can be consumed   by a public communityIt seems to me that something that works in some cases but isn't fully developed as an end-user easy-to-use product is ideal to complete in the incubator. - rework a clear internal separation  between AjaxTk and   ZCS with different repos, dependency management, indep   release cycle, and so on...Repository issues, build, test, separation of dependencies, etc. can be very repository-specific. If you build this infrastructure in source forge you would have to deal with similar but different issues here in Apache. Why require them to make two transitions? - adjust internal dev processes to deal with the public   infra (and possibly some early external dev)IMHO this is a critical part of building a community. - start building a long term external community by   actively attracting new committers  I would feel more comfortable if the first 3 steps would be done somewhere else before any incubation starts so that incubation can really focus on the last point.Sorry, but I don't agree. The way the first 3 steps are handled will give the Apache community a good sense of whether this project "gets it" or not, and we might as well help them with the process sooner than later. Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps that you can't bring by yourself as an ASF member and the amount of work and risk of failure in those 3 first steps is IMO significant.I'm not sure that I understand your point. Certainly "any" open source repository is a different environment from a closed source, but I don't see an argument for or against incubation in Apache. The benefit of such a 2 step process is that this gives you an actual public track record before incubation is decided and voids most concerns about incubation being a pure branding exercicse since a significant amount of work would already have been spent in making the AjaxTk OSS independantly of any Apache commitment.I'd still say that there is significant breakage involved in taking a closed source through two migrations rather than one. I think we need to remain focused on the barrier to incubation as documented in the Apache policies and not try to create new processes on the fly.To me the critical piece here is "donation". These folks have intellectual property that appears to be useful and they want to donate it to Apache. Due diligence is required to make sure that there are people in Apache who want to see it succeed (mentors, sponsors, champions, developers, users), and there are resources available to build a community here. But let's not put artificial barriers in their way. There are plenty of barriers once in incubation.Craig  --  Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java http://portals.apache.org/  Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!  

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Andrew Clark wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
> 
>>- no source control access
> 
> 
> We have read-only CVS access[1] already for the entire
> project. The details should definitely be more visible,
> though. I'll talk to someone about getting it more
> prominent on the main site.
>

I missed the link. It should indeed be more visible :)

> 
>>I understand that you wouldn't want to setup your own public
>>dev infrastructure but using sf.net, codehaus, tigris or
>>whatever public infra wouldn't have been very onerous.
>>
>>My concern here is if no resources have been dedicated
>>so far to really build the AjaxTk into an OSS project why
>>would that change once it is in incubation ?
> 
> 
> Let me try to summarize what I think your point is and
> you can tell me if I'm wrong. You would feel better
> about the submission if it were already a fully formed
> OSS project on an external site with full development
> infrastructure and long-time active community. Is this
> accurate? 
> 

The "long time active community" is not accurate and building
such a community is a main reason for the Incubator.

As far I can tell, what needs to happen to fully OSS AjaxTk
is something like this:
- cleanup the code/doc/install so that Tk can be consumed
  by a public community
- rework a clear internal separation  between AjaxTk and
  ZCS with different repos, dependency management, indep
  release cycle, and so on...
- adjust internal dev processes to deal with the public
  infra (and possibly some early external dev)
- start building a long term external community by
  actively attracting new committers

I would feel more comfortable if the first 3 steps would be
done somewhere else before any incubation starts so that
incubation can really focus on the last point.
Apache does not bring any value in the first 3 steps that you
can't bring by yourself as an ASF member and the amount of
work and risk of failure in those 3 first steps is IMO
significant.
The benefit of such a 2 step process is that this gives
you an actual public track record before incubation is
decided and voids most concerns about incubation being a pure
branding exercicse since a significant amount of work would
already have been spent in making the AjaxTk OSS independantly
of any Apache commitment.

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Andrew Clark]

Raphaël Luta wrote:
> I completely understand that you're not a toolkit company
> however I can't understand why the AjaxTk is currently in
> such a sore open-source state:
> - the code dumps on the site are not functional out of the
>   box

To be precise, all of the toolkit (widgets, utils, etc)
are completely functional. It's the infrastructure for
the samples that need some work to make them work out 
of the box.

> - no source control access

We have read-only CVS access[1] already for the entire
project. The details should definitely be more visible,
though. I'll talk to someone about getting it more
prominent on the main site.

> I understand that you wouldn't want to setup your own public
> dev infrastructure but using sf.net, codehaus, tigris or
> whatever public infra wouldn't have been very onerous.
> 
> My concern here is if no resources have been dedicated
> so far to really build the AjaxTk into an OSS project why
> would that change once it is in incubation ?

Let me try to summarize what I think your point is and
you can tell me if I'm wrong. You would feel better
about the submission if it were already a fully formed
OSS project on an external site with full development
infrastructure and long-time active community. Is this
accurate? 

It seems to me that if that were the case, then there
would be little need to come to the Apache incubator
with all the extra work and headaches of the process.
There are certainly projects that seem to be natural
extensions to Apache and thus, as someone put it,
"come home". But most fully-formed projects would have
little need to come to Apache so I would be wary of
them wanting the Apache brand.

In this case, the Kabuki submission is an attempt to
help kickstart the AJAX movement at Apache. And we're
willing to work on that with other members of the
community. But being in the Apache incubator certainly
doesn't help us; it's actually a loss when you consider
the time and resources that are taken away from our
core business. And we're not doing it for the press 
'cause that's simply not allowed until after a project 
exits incubation which could be years down the road.

Anyway, we've probably had enough discussion and should
just vote this up or down. If you feel that strongly
about it, you can vote your -1 veto. Your other option
is to let it pass but lodge your disapproval with a -0.


[1] http://www.zimbra.com/forums/showthread.php?t=793

-- 
Andy Clark * Zimbra * [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sam Ruby]

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:


What's the status of the vote? I'm confused by calls to repeal the vote
and modifications to the vote and all that. I thought we were spsed to
be a simple bunch of, um, people but it sure doesn't look like it! ;-)


Overview of what occurred:

1) on 12/20, Adam Peller posted a proposal for comments (not a vote!). 
The most significant comments related to the inclusion of Eclipse 
components, and the perception of this being an umbrella.


2) on 1/15, I posted a signficantly reduced proposal for a vote. 
Missing from that proposal is any Eclipse componentry.  Justin asked for 
a clarification regarding server components, and there were numereous 
requests for a new name.  Some questions were raised as to whether a 
Zimbra employee could make an adequate mentor.  On 1/19, Leo and Geir 
asked for a new vote.


3) on 1/23, I posted a new vote on a proposal now named Kabuki.  Here 
are links to the current proposal, to the set of changes, and to the 
start of the current vote thread:


http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/KabukiProposal
http://tinyurl.com/e3egs
http://tinyurl.com/7emr5


Am I spsed to vote my choice at this time or is there no vote going on?


Yes there is a vote going on.  Please do vote.

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Hi Raphael,
> 
> 
>>I would agree with this if there was no immediate percieved benefit
>>when you are in Incubator, unfortunately it seems projects under
>>incubation are still perceived by the larger community as endorsed by
>>Apache.
> 
> 
> If that's indeed the problem then we need to work on clearing up that
> misconception. That concern applies to all projects in the Incubator,
> not just this candidate.
> 

It indeed applies to all incubating projects and IMO more acutely
for corporate code grants projects (as opposed to established OSS
projects that just move home like SpamAssassin did).
In code grant projects, little is known before incubation really
starts so trust is an important factor in these cases.

> 
>>As long as this is true, accepting a project in the incubator even if
>>it stays there indefinitely *does* matter to me.
>>In the end, I don't think it's a personal prejudice but more a lack of
>>trust in the motivations of the proposal.
> 
> That's a very strong statement .. let's please keep this conversation
> totally civil and respectful. This proposal is, after all, being
> strongly supported by Sam, who's not just a 2-bit member like me but
> rather a board member that you and I and other members elected to look
> after the best interests of the foundation. I've known Sam for many
> years and he's stubborn as a deaf mule and the last person who will give
> into pressure from his employer to do something that will harm the ASF.
> Sam has consistently been jumping into new stuff and really having
> dramatic impact quickly and intensely. I suspect he will do the same
> with this and I don't expect the other people around him will enjoy
> every minute of it. (I know I haven't for the stuff I've been around
> with him for ;-))
> 

I didn't mean to be disrepectful to anyone and especially Sam. Please
accept me apologies if my words were considered rude. I believe Sam cares
deeply about the ASF and does what he thinks is right. We disagree about
what is right in this particular case (and then Roy, Noel and many others
agree with him so I'm definitely in a minority here).

That being said, I think I've pretty much listed all my reservations now.
Sam has made a good job of amending the proposal to include as many
concerns as possible short of postponing or dropping the proposal.
I don't think there's much left to discuss here.

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

Hi Raphael,

> I would agree with this if there was no immediate percieved benefit
> when you are in Incubator, unfortunately it seems projects under
> incubation are still perceived by the larger community as endorsed by
> Apache.

If that's indeed the problem then we need to work on clearing up that
misconception. That concern applies to all projects in the Incubator,
not just this candidate.

I don't see it as reasonable to reject this proposal on that basis.

> As long as this is true, accepting a project in the incubator even if
> it stays there indefinitely *does* matter to me.
> In the end, I don't think it's a personal prejudice but more a lack of
> trust in the motivations of the proposal.

That's a very strong statement .. let's please keep this conversation
totally civil and respectful. This proposal is, after all, being
strongly supported by Sam, who's not just a 2-bit member like me but
rather a board member that you and I and other members elected to look
after the best interests of the foundation. I've known Sam for many
years and he's stubborn as a deaf mule and the last person who will give
into pressure from his employer to do something that will harm the ASF.
Sam has consistently been jumping into new stuff and really having
dramatic impact quickly and intensely. I suspect he will do the same
with this and I don't expect the other people around him will enjoy
every minute of it. (I know I haven't for the stuff I've been around
with him for ;-))

> I'm confused too by the voting process and repeated proposals even before
> the discussion has died down.

I think the new vote was called after the discussion settled (or we
jumped to another horse to beat on) but clearly things are in a confused
state now.

Sanjiva.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Andrew Clark wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote: 
> 
>>Seeing Zimbra current OSS efforts with this toolkit 
>>(even with an ASF member in their team), I have a hard 
>>time believing this proposal is anything but a branding 
>>exercise to help this toolkit stand out in the crowd of 
>>Ajax toolkits. 
> 

Thanks for your answer Andy. It sure helps flesh out your
motivations.

> The Zimbra product owes much of its success to open- 
> source products, especially from Apache. The Kabuki 
> submission for incubation is an attempt to give back 
> to the community that's given us so much coupled with 
> the fact that we believe browser-based client coding 
> with Ajax is a natural fit with the web-centric theme 
> of Apache projects. 
> 

Here we completely agree that Ajax certainly has a place
in the ASF.

> Our core business is collaboration and competing against 
> Exchange server; we aren't a tools or toolkit company. As 
> such, we are not associating the Zimbra brand with the 
> toolkit and aren't planning on making money from this
> effort. I hope that goes a little way towards easing
> some people's concerns regarding the submission.
>

I completely understand that you're not a toolkit company
however I can't understand why the AjaxTk is currently in
such a sore open-source state:
- the code dumps on the site are not functional out of the
  box
- no source control access
- the sourceforge site is half configured and no links
  have been created to this tk (freshmeat, etc...)

I understand that you wouldn't want to setup your own public
dev infrastructure but using sf.net, codehaus, tigris or
whatever public infra wouldn't have been very onerous.

My concern here is if no resources have been dedicated
so far to really build the AjaxTk into an OSS project why
would that change once it is in incubation ?

It could be done now in sf or codehaus. That would trigger
all the zimbra internal changes that will have to happen
to make such a task work (like how to manage the internal
and external source repositories, commit access, bug
reporting, public design decisions, etc...). You will pick
an initial community then but most importantly work out
the internal issues that are bound to happen.

Proposing an to enter incubation from that situation would
be a no-brainer for me.

> One last note... the Zimbra marketing guy is well aware 
> that PR for incubated projects will not be allowed and 
> he's completely cool with that. Zimbra wants to do "the 
> right thing" and are willing to commit resources to try 
> to make that happen. However, if the Apache community is 
> still uneasy about the submission and denies its entry 
> to incubation, so be it. But I would love to see Apache 
> take a role in crafting the future of AJAX programming 
> (with the added personal benefit of being paid to work 
> on Apache technology again :). 
> 

I think it's hard to speak for the "Apache community" ;)
In the end, we're all individuals and certainly don't agree
on everything.
I'm not completely comfortable with the current proposal
mostly because I am concerned by recent PR issues and I
got concerned by the amount of boilerplate text in
the different proposals (reading the current line on
meritocracy still makes me cringe).

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Ted Leung]

On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:38 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote:

XMLBeans had only 1 member/committer from the beginning but not  
affiliated

with the sponsor.


Steven Noels and I were the ASF members involved with XMLBeans and  
neither of us was employed by BEA.  The initial list of committers  
included 3 other people not employed by BEA, however one was unable  
to participate due to his employer's issues with the CLAs.  Original  
proposal here: 


Ted
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 13:38 +0100, Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
>>Seeing Zimbra current OSS efforts with this toolkit (even with an ASF member
>>in their team), I have a hard time believing this proposal is anything but a
>>branding exercise to help this toolkit stand out in the crowd of Ajax 
>>toolkits.
>>
>>My "admission bar" for such proposals is set much higher than usual.
> 
> With all due respect Raphael, I find this unreasonable. You can't make
> random "admission bars" for projects based on personal prejudices. What
> I suggest is that you join the project as a mentor and make sure push
> them hard to make sure they come out clean as whistle or hold them in
> incubation until its killed. That way you convince yourself that the
> project is good *from the ASF points of view* (community, meritocracy
> etc.) but not from things like visibility point of view which by no
> means are a requirement.
> 

I would agree with this if there was no immediate percieved benefit
when you are in Incubator, unfortunately it seems projects under
incubation are still perceived by the larger community as endorsed by
Apache.
As long as this is true, accepting a project in the incubator even if
it stays there indefinitely *does* matter to me.
In the end, I don't think it's a personal prejudice but more a lack of
trust in the motivations of the proposal.

> What's the status of the vote? I'm confused by calls to repeal the vote
> and modifications to the vote and all that. I thought we were spsed to
> be a simple bunch of, um, people but it sure doesn't look like it! ;-)
> 

I'm confused too by the voting process and repeated proposals even before
the discussion has died down.

> Am I spsed to vote my choice at this time or is there no vote going on?
> So confused. Must be the freezing weather in Sri Lanka these days. Its
> been like 65F in Colombo at nite. Brr.
> 

27F here in Paris, It sure wakes you up in the morning :)

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 13:38 +0100, Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
> Seeing Zimbra current OSS efforts with this toolkit (even with an ASF member
> in their team), I have a hard time believing this proposal is anything but a
> branding exercise to help this toolkit stand out in the crowd of Ajax 
> toolkits.
> 
> My "admission bar" for such proposals is set much higher than usual.

With all due respect Raphael, I find this unreasonable. You can't make
random "admission bars" for projects based on personal prejudices. What
I suggest is that you join the project as a mentor and make sure push
them hard to make sure they come out clean as whistle or hold them in
incubation until its killed. That way you convince yourself that the
project is good *from the ASF points of view* (community, meritocracy
etc.) but not from things like visibility point of view which by no
means are a requirement.

What's the status of the vote? I'm confused by calls to repeal the vote
and modifications to the vote and all that. I thought we were spsed to
be a simple bunch of, um, people but it sure doesn't look like it! ;-)

Am I spsed to vote my choice at this time or is there no vote going on?
So confused. Must be the freezing weather in Sri Lanka these days. Its
been like 65F in Colombo at nite. Brr.

Sanjiva.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Andrew Clark]

Raphaël Luta wrote: 
> Seeing Zimbra current OSS efforts with this toolkit 
> (even with an ASF member in their team), I have a hard 
> time believing this proposal is anything but a branding 
> exercise to help this toolkit stand out in the crowd of 
> Ajax toolkits. 

The Zimbra product owes much of its success to open- 
source products, especially from Apache. The Kabuki 
submission for incubation is an attempt to give back 
to the community that's given us so much coupled with 
the fact that we believe browser-based client coding 
with Ajax is a natural fit with the web-centric theme 
of Apache projects. 

Our core business is collaboration and competing against 
Exchange server; we aren't a tools or toolkit company. As 
such, we are not associating the Zimbra brand with the 
toolkit and aren't planning on making money from this
effort. I hope that goes a little way towards easing
some people's concerns regarding the submission.

One last note... the Zimbra marketing guy is well aware 
that PR for incubated projects will not be allowed and 
he's completely cool with that. Zimbra wants to do "the 
right thing" and are willing to commit resources to try 
to make that happen. However, if the Apache community is 
still uneasy about the submission and denies its entry 
to incubation, so be it. But I would love to see Apache 
take a role in crafting the future of AJAX programming 
(with the added personal benefit of being paid to work 
on Apache technology again :). 

-- 
Andy Clark * Zimbra * [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
> 
>>Do we have other incubating projects following the Kabuki pattern, ie
>>all initial committers from a single company with the mentor salaried
>>by the same company ? I'd sure like to know how these evolved if
>>we have any.
> 
> 
> Hmm ... I'd have to check, but XMLBeans, Beehive and Derby?  Certainly
> Derby, which was brought in by IBM and Mentored by Ken and Sam.
> 

Interesting.
Derby had 3 mentors so they would pass the 3 members check although they
are all tied to the sponsor.
Beehive seems to have had 2 members from the get go (dims and craig) none
of them associated with the sponsor.
XMLBeans had only 1 member/committer from the beginning but not affiliated
with the sponsor.

> 
>>As far as i know, it has never been reviewed on the mailing-list
>>probably because it didn't show up on the radar.
> 
> 
> So should we take the lack of use as a critique against anything other than
> visibility?
> 

No but should the ASF provide instant visibility to any framework
without having the sponsor to work at least a little on the community
before coming to the ASF ?
Isn't AjaxTk already open-sourced ?

If you want to try something, go on sf.net, freshmeat, etc... and try
*finding* AjaxTk. It sure helps understand why it's not on anybody's radar.

Seeing Zimbra current OSS efforts with this toolkit (even with an ASF member
in their team), I have a hard time believing this proposal is anything but a
branding exercise to help this toolkit stand out in the crowd of Ajax toolkits.

My "admission bar" for such proposals is set much higher than usual.

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> Do we have other incubating projects following the Kabuki pattern, ie
> all initial committers from a single company with the mentor salaried
> by the same company ? I'd sure like to know how these evolved if
> we have any.

Hmm ... I'd have to check, but XMLBeans, Beehive and Derby?  Certainly
Derby, which was brought in by IBM and Mentored by Ken and Sam.

> I'm glad Martin has been added as a commmitter to Kabuli but I would
> feel much better about it if other existing memebrs/committers willing
> to work on that project would join.

So would I, but community building often takes time.

> As far as i know, it has never been reviewed on the mailing-list
> probably because it didn't show up on the radar.

So should we take the lack of use as a critique against anything other than
visibility?

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
>> We're doing loops here. My point in this thread  is that initial code
>> quality does matter in a code grant incubation because it is often
>> burdened by backward compatibility with existing applications and
>> thus major restructure may require a revolution which can hardly
>> safely happen in the early months of the project open-source life.
> 
> 
> And all those points are wrong.  There is no burden of backward
> compatibility because it must be an entirely new product -- all
> of the names change anyway.  A major restructure is a good idea;
> that is, after all, why we founded Apache as a project to replace
> NCSA httpd 1.3R, which was replaced by Shambhala within 6 months.
> And it certainly doesn't have to happen "safely" -- the project is
> going to be shooting for TLP status, which means about a year or more
> under incubation before it can even do real releases, and the more
> hard decisions the group has to make (in public), the better they
> will learn how to collaborate.
> 

I fail to see how you can apply the httpd situation (standalone server,
initial community with independant contributors, most downstream users
relying on standard http/cgi) to the current proposal (development
toolkit/"framework", community with hierarhical relationships and
downstream users code-dependant on toolkit).
You take the optimistic view that the community would work as expected;
I have a pessimistic view that it will not without some cost to the ASF
if at all.

> Honestly, once the name is changed to something neutral like Kabuki,
> none of your objections make any sense.  Especially the ones about
> code quality, since most of our projects started with code that
> needed a serious re-arch almost immediately.  I would love to see
> three or four different ajax toolkits under the ASF, each with
> its own architectural focus, and let them compete for developers,
> but we can only approve one podling at a time.
> 

+1 I just wish they would join with a least a nucleus of public
community.

> Meanwhile, I do think that any proposal to the Incubator needs at
> least three active Apache committers involved, preferably members
> that are willing to do infrastructure tasks.  Incubator podlings
> are seriously infrastructure dependent and the existing volunteers
> are already tapped-out.
> 

+1

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
> 
>>do you really feel comfortable when the main point of oversight
>>for the ASF in an incubated project is in the pay of the project
>>sponsor and quite possibly internally reporting to one of the
>>project committer ?  The potential for conflict is huge and I
>>would personnally hate to be in such an awkward position.
> 
> 
> I can think of examples supporting your view, but most probably support
> Roy's.  By trying to get at least 3 ASF Members as active Mentors, perhaps
> we can better address the concern.
> 

Do we have other incubating projects following the Kabuki pattern, ie
all initial committers from a single company with the mentor salaried
by the same company ? I'd sure like to know how these evolved if
we have any.

I'm glad Martin has been added as a commmitter to Kabuli but I would
feel much better about it if other existing memebrs/committers willing
to work on that project would join.

> 
>>others from Portals may wish to give it a try but I somehow
>>doubt it given that the toolkit didn't even show up in the
>>short list  when we first investigated the field for our
>>AJAX support.
> 
> 
> Was it reviewed?  Or just didn't show up on the radar?
> 

As far as i know, it has never been reviewed on the mailing-list
probably because it didn't show up on the radar.

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> do you really feel comfortable when the main point of oversight
> for the ASF in an incubated project is in the pay of the project
> sponsor and quite possibly internally reporting to one of the
> project committer ?  The potential for conflict is huge and I
> would personnally hate to be in such an awkward position.

I can think of examples supporting your view, but most probably support
Roy's.  By trying to get at least 3 ASF Members as active Mentors, perhaps
we can better address the concern.

> others from Portals may wish to give it a try but I somehow
> doubt it given that the toolkit didn't even show up in the
> short list  when we first investigated the field for our
> AJAX support.

Was it reviewed?  Or just didn't show up on the radar?

> I don't see why incubating it would change in any way its fitness
> for our purpose.

What makes you say that it isn't fit for the purpose?

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Roy T. Fielding]

On Jan 19, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote:


We're doing loops here. My point in this thread  is that initial code
quality does matter in a code grant incubation because it is often
burdened by backward compatibility with existing applications and
thus major restructure may require a revolution which can hardly
safely happen in the early months of the project open-source life.


And all those points are wrong.  There is no burden of backward
compatibility because it must be an entirely new product -- all
of the names change anyway.  A major restructure is a good idea;
that is, after all, why we founded Apache as a project to replace
NCSA httpd 1.3R, which was replaced by Shambhala within 6 months.
And it certainly doesn't have to happen "safely" -- the project is
going to be shooting for TLP status, which means about a year or more
under incubation before it can even do real releases, and the more
hard decisions the group has to make (in public), the better they
will learn how to collaborate.

Honestly, once the name is changed to something neutral like Kabuki,
none of your objections make any sense.  Especially the ones about
code quality, since most of our projects started with code that
needed a serious re-arch almost immediately.  I would love to see
three or four different ajax toolkits under the ASF, each with
its own architectural focus, and let them compete for developers,
but we can only approve one podling at a time.

Meanwhile, I do think that any proposal to the Incubator needs at
least three active Apache committers involved, preferably members
that are willing to do infrastructure tasks.  Incubator podlings
are seriously infrastructure dependent and the existing volunteers
are already tapped-out.

Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Roy T. Fielding]

On Jan 19, 2006, at 12:18 AM, Raphaël Luta wrote:


Le 19 janv. 06 à 03:03, Noel J. Bergman a écrit :

Raphaël Luta wrote:


What specific concerns do you have with this community and this

codebase?

- the mentor for this project is salaried by the project sponsor !


To date, we have said that an ASF Member is an individual, not an  
employeee.
Mind you, we're also discussing that a project SHOULD have  
multiple Mentors.


But do you really feel comfortable when the main point of oversight  
for the ASF in
an incubated project is in the pay of the project sponsor and quite  
possibly

internally reporting to one of the project committer ?
The potential for conflict is huge and I would personnally hate to  
be in such

an awkward position.


I am in that position for Jackrabbit.  It hasn't been a problem for me,
but it was one of the reasons that I made sure we had several other
ASF members involved as well.

BTW, the "main point of oversight" is the PPMC as a whole, not the  
chair.

It is relatively easy to see when that isn't happening.  In any case,
that is why we call them incubating projects.

Roy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Le 19 janv. 06 à 02:57, Noel J. Bergman a écrit :


Raphaël Luta wrote:


I thought it would be safe to assume that Zimbra collaboration suite
uses the AjaxTk. If it doesn't then I'm even more worried about that
codebase ;)


Why?



Because then I would have to reconsider the "orphaned product" statement
of the proposal. Anyway, as far as I can tell froom looking at Zimbra
collaborative suite, it does depend on the ajaxTk.


An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
than starting from scratch.

  Apache SOAP -> Apache Axis
  Tomcat 3 -> Tomcat 4 -> Tomcat 5 -> Tomcat 5.5 ...
  Jetspeed 1 -> Jetspeed 2  ;-)



My point exactly !



Most of these transitions have not been a smooth ride even though
they are successful: it takes time and a resilient community to
manage these.


 No one said that doing it was necessarily easy, but isn't creating
resilient, healthy, communities a major part of our purpose?



We're doing loops here. My point in this thread  is that initial code
quality does matter in a code grant incubation because it is often
burdened by backward compatibility with existing applications and
thus major restructure may require a revolution which can hardly
safely happen in the early months of the project open-source life.

--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Jetspeed - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Le 19 janv. 06 à 03:03, Noel J. Bergman a écrit :

Raphaël Luta wrote:


What specific concerns do you have with this community and this

codebase?

- the mentor for this project is salaried by the project sponsor !


To date, we have said that an ASF Member is an individual, not an  
employeee.
Mind you, we're also discussing that a project SHOULD have multiple  
Mentors.




But do you really feel comfortable when the main point of oversight  
for the ASF in
an incubated project is in the pay of the project sponsor and quite  
possibly

internally reporting to one of the project committer ?
The potential for conflict is huge and I would personnally hate to be  
in such

an awkward position.


- I can trace no public attempt to meet other possible user apache
  communities (myfaces, portals, cocoon, etc...) even after first
  proposal rejection


I see interaction with MyFaces, and one of them already added as a
Committer.  You are here.  Is Portal going to give it a whirl?



I personally will not, others from Portals may wish to give it a try but
I somehow doubt it given that the toolkit didn't even show up in the
short list  when we first investigated the field for our AJAX support.
I don't see why incubating it would change in any way its fitness
for our purpose.
(a quick google search shows that this is true for all existing
 ASF projects. Dojo, DWR, Prototype, Rico have all generated some
traffic, Zimbra never)

--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Jetspeed - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Martin,

> Given that nobody else seems to share my views on the
> architecture

I think that many of us are still waiting for some details, other than the
namespace.

> or on the effect of the ASF brand on the AJAX world

So we should pre-select projects for Incubation based upon whether or not
the code, not the community, is best-of-breed and worthy of annointing?

You know, some projects used to say that the "incubating" label put them in
a potentially negativce light.

> given that the incubator appears to be a "just knock and you're in"
> project anyway

Not quite, but how high do you want the bar, and still expect people to feel
that they can bring projects here and try to innovate?  And please note that
getting in is not the same as getting out.

Plus, if you want talk about projects worthy of annointing, or not, should
we next go through existing TLPs and expel some because their code sucks?

> I've assumed pretty much from the get-go that I'm fighting a lost
> cause here. But that doesn't mean I want to go quietly.

Fortitude, paired with a reasonable and rational nature, is a good thing.
Don't apologize for it.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> > What specific concerns do you have with this community and this
codebase?
> - the mentor for this project is salaried by the project sponsor !

To date, we have said that an ASF Member is an individual, not an employeee.
Mind you, we're also discussing that a project SHOULD have multiple Mentors.

> - I can trace no public attempt to meet other possible user apache
>   communities (myfaces, portals, cocoon, etc...) even after first
>   proposal rejection

I see interaction with MyFaces, and one of them already added as a
Committer.  You are here.  Is Portal going to give it a whirl?

> - I see negative technical feedback on the proposal from ASF
>   people I trust left unanswered

Actually, everyone is waiting for Martin to provide technical details, and
there *have* been answers to those few that people could parse out.

> - some ties with a possible "downstream" community, possibly
>   adding some of their committers in the initial committer pool

A MyFaces Committer was already added to the list.  How about you for
Portal?  If not you, who?

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> I thought it would be safe to assume that Zimbra collaboration suite
> uses the AjaxTk. If it doesn't then I'm even more worried about that
> codebase ;)

Why?

>>>An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
>>>than starting from scratch.
>>   Apache SOAP -> Apache Axis
>>   Tomcat 3 -> Tomcat 4 -> Tomcat 5 -> Tomcat 5.5 ...
>>   Jetspeed 1 -> Jetspeed 2  ;-)

> My point exactly !

> Most of these transitions have not been a smooth ride even though
> they are successful: it takes time and a resilient community to
> manage these.

 No one said that doing it was necessarily easy, but isn't creating
resilient, healthy, communities a major part of our purpose?

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
> 
>>along with [a] codebase come an established group of committers
>>with an interest in keeping their current architecture or at
>>least backward compatibility
> 
> That carries a fairly large assumption, and really should be posed as a
> question, not an answer.
> 

I thought it would be safe to assume that Zimbra collaboration suite
uses the AjaxTk. If it doesn't then I'm even more worried about that
codebase ;)

>>An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
>>than starting from scratch.
> 
>   Apache SOAP -> Apache Axis
>   Tomcat 3 -> Tomcat 4 -> Tomcat 5 -> Tomcat 5.5 ...
>   Jetspeed 1 -> Jetspeed 2  ;-)
> 

My point exactly ! (and you could add httpd 1.x -> httpd 2.x)
Most of these transitions have not been a smooth ride even though
they are successful: it takes time and a resilient community to
manage these.

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
>> Erik Abele wrote:
>>
>>> It's just the initial code, nothing more :)
>>
>> I don't agree with this statement.
>> The code itself is indeed only the initial codebase but along with
>> this codebase come an established group of committers with an
>> interest in keeping their current architecture or at least backward
>> compatibility
>>
>> 
>>
>> I think my point is simply that in a code grant incubation
>> scenario, initial codebase and initial community *do* matter
>> because they'll act as natural forces towards stability and
>> are likely to shape the community and codebase for a long time.
> 
> Hopefully, at some point, these somewhat abstract discussion of concerns
> that are relevant to all proposals will solidify into concrete concerns
> regarding this specific proposal.
> 

I was simply in disagreement with Erik statement that initial code is
not that important. It's tangential to the actual zimbra proposal.

> Is code irrelevant?  That would be absurd.  That's why the code has been
> made available for all to download, inspect and comment on.
> 
> I think a more neutral restatement of what Eric and Noel are trying to
> say is that while good communities always overcome bad code, no amount
> of good code can make up for a bad community.
> 

While I more or less agree with this statement, I think that bad code can
prevent a good community from happening in the first place, especially
when good communities exist elsewhere.
I've not reviewed the code so that statement above does not
reflect any quality judgement on the proposed zimbra toolkit

> On the other had, Raphaël, I see you making implicit assumptions that
> the committers will have entrenched interests that will be difficult to
> overcome, and that the existing community is "mature".  What evidence do
> you have of that?  I'm sure that you can give examples of other
> communities where that was a problem, and I can give examples of other
> communities where that was NOT a problem.  What do either examples
> prove?  Nothing.
> 
> What specific concerns do you have with this community and this codebase?
> 

If we're talking explicitly about the Zimbra proposal, here's my current
understanding of the proposal :

Of the 4 "Criteria" listed in the proposal, only 1 is met by the proposal:
Alignment to ASF

All 3 others are filled with boilerplate statements that indicate:
- the project does not use at all a meritocratic model right now
- there's no community
- the core developers are strongly bound to a single entity with only Andy
  being easily traced to prior open source activity

Of the 6 warning signs listed:
- 1 is defintitely not met: the Zimbra toolkit is not an orphaned product
- 1 is possibly met: Inexperience with open-source, again 30 minutes of
  Googling for the zimbra team show little oss credentials
- 1 is probably met: fascination with Apache brand, but I'll admit it's a
  personal interpretation
- 3 are definitively met:
  - reliance on salaried developers
  - homogenous developers (I'll admit that IMO if the 2 are often linked)
  - no ties to other apache products

Additional personal expectations:
- the Zimbra collaboration suite uses the AjaxTk so there will be some
  backward compatibility burden attached to the codebase.
- if incubation is accepted, I expect a lot of PR noise around it due to
  hype surrounding AJAX and aggressive communication profile of Zimbra

Positive signs:
- the updated proposal has attempted to fix some of the issues raised after
  the first proposal that could be fixed (scope, number of initial committers)

Negative signs:
- the mentor for this project is salaried by the project sponsor !
- I can trace no public attempt to meet other possible user apache
  communities (myfaces, portals, cocoon, etc...) even after first proposal
  rejection
- I see negative technical feedback on the proposal from ASF people I trust
  left unanswered

When you put all this together, you can understand I'm hardly enthusiastic
about this proposal.
What would change my opinion ?
2 must have:
- no PR before graduation
- an independant mentor
1 nice to have:
- some ties with a possible "downstream" community, possibly adding some
  of their committers in the initial committer pool

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

> along with [a] codebase come an established group of committers
> with an interest in keeping their current architecture or at
> least backward compatibility

That carries a fairly large assumption, and really should be posed as a
question, not an answer.

> An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
> than starting from scratch.

  Apache SOAP -> Apache Axis
  Tomcat 3 -> Tomcat 4 -> Tomcat 5 -> Tomcat 5.5 ...
  Jetspeed 1 -> Jetspeed 2  ;-)

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Martin Cooper wrote:

> the incubator operates as an open door to whoever knocks,
> with virtually no entry criteria.

The criteria is that another PMC votes or the Incubator PMC votes.  In the
latter case, we should be looking to see interest from the Membership.  In
numerous cases, I can think of proposals that came and went with no fanfare,
largely because no one was interested.  When we DO see interest from ASF
Members, I have no problem with a discussion to educate them if one feels
that there are reasons to reconsider, but past that, isn't it just down to a
vote?

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 14:27, Martin Cooper wrote:
> And the impact of giving a project the ASF brand. And the way the incubator
> operates as an open door to whoever knocks, with virtually no entry
> criteria.

This seems to be a recurring (growing?) concern among people 'inside' ASF. 
Perhaps the membership+Board should discuss this matter and re-issue a 
clearer directive to the Incubator.

Cheers
Niclas

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 18:00, Raphaël Luta wrote:

Since you placed this in a separate paragraph, I must comment of it 
independently of the rest of your post;

> An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
> than starting from scratch. 

Not by default.
for FILE in `ls | grep -v \.svn` ; do svn rm $FILE ; done
svn commit -m "Heavy restructure started."
svn mkdir src/
and so on...

> Even if someone would be willing to 
> contribute to this projet to help address major technical issues,
> it would require a huge amount of effort to effect a significant
> architectural change because of community inertia and backward
> compatibility requirements.

You're making a lot of assumptions with a statement like that. It may or may 
not be true. Revolutions do happen, and sometimes they are good, often they 
are not. The best revolutions happens with (time * evolution).


I agree with Sam. Although I am not particularily fond of the AJAX hype in 
itself, and would be happy if the proposal is called something else like 
Sambal, DryDock or Quintessen, a seeding codebase can barely be a bad thing 
and if a set of good people want to try to grok the Apache Way and prepare to 
subject to the Incubation process, then WHY NOT let them and whoever in ASF 
to join in on the fun.
If Xyz have another "purportedly better" way of doing AJAX, then submit a 
Incubation proposal, with or without seeding codebase and gather the 
community to make it happen. As history have shown, ASF doesn't mind 
competing (successfully!) with itself.


Cheers
Niclas

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sam Ruby]

Raphaël Luta wrote:

Erik Abele wrote:

Oh, of course - but for now there's no community yet so he is 
complaining into the blue sky :)


I'd certainly like to see a response to the concerns raised by Martin 
but OTOH I don't think that it should evolve into a discussion about 
basic architectural principles or even impact the final consideration 
of incubation.


It's just the initial code, nothing more :)


I don't agree with this statement.
The code itself is indeed only the initial codebase but along with
this codebase come an established group of committers with an
interest in keeping their current architecture or at least backward 
compatibility

An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
than starting from scratch. Even if someone would be willing to
contribute to this projet to help address major technical issues,
it would require a huge amount of effort to effect a significant
architectural change because of community inertia and backward
compatibility requirements.


From what I've seen at Apache, major rearchitecture work always

happen as a "revolution" with an entirely new implementation
being built and these "revolutions" are dangerous to a
project communiy health.
Given the frictions created by "revolutions", it's important
that these do not happen before the community is mature else
they may simply split it.

I think my point is simply that in a code grant incubation
scenario, initial codebase and initial community *do* matter
because they'll act as natural forces towards stability and
are likely to shape the community and codebase for a long time.


Hopefully, at some point, these somewhat abstract discussion of concerns 
that are relevant to all proposals will solidify into concrete concerns 
regarding this specific proposal.


Is code irrelevant?  That would be absurd.  That's why the code has been 
made available for all to download, inspect and comment on.


I think a more neutral restatement of what Eric and Noel are trying to 
say is that while good communities always overcome bad code, no amount 
of good code can make up for a bad community.


On the other had, Raphaël, I see you making implicit assumptions that 
the committers will have entrenched interests that will be difficult to 
overcome, and that the existing community is "mature".  What evidence do 
you have of that?  I'm sure that you can give examples of other 
communities where that was a problem, and I can give examples of other 
communities where that was NOT a problem.  What do either examples 
prove?  Nothing.


What specific concerns do you have with this community and this codebase?

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Raphaël Luta]

Erik Abele wrote:
> 
> Oh, of course - but for now there's no community yet so he is 
> complaining into the blue sky :)
> 
> I'd certainly like to see a response to the concerns raised by Martin 
> but OTOH I don't think that it should evolve into a discussion about 
> basic architectural principles or even impact the final consideration 
> of incubation.
> 
> It's just the initial code, nothing more :)
> 

I don't agree with this statement.
The code itself is indeed only the initial codebase but along with
this codebase come an established group of committers with an
interest in keeping their current architecture or at least backward 
compatibility

An established codebase is *much* more difficult to restructure
than starting from scratch. Even if someone would be willing to
contribute to this projet to help address major technical issues,
it would require a huge amount of effort to effect a significant
architectural change because of community inertia and backward
compatibility requirements.

>From what I've seen at Apache, major rearchitecture work always
happen as a "revolution" with an entirely new implementation
being built and these "revolutions" are dangerous to a
project communiy health.
Given the frictions created by "revolutions", it's important
that these do not happen before the community is mature else
they may simply split it.

I think my point is simply that in a code grant incubation
scenario, initial codebase and initial community *do* matter
because they'll act as natural forces towards stability and
are likely to shape the community and codebase for a long time.

Just my 2 eurocents,

-- 
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apache Portals - Enterprise Portal in Java
http://portals.apache.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/16/06, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 17.01.2006, at 00:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > Martin Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> whether I get involved with the Zimbra toolkit, and try to help them
> >> see the light, I need to make a personal decision between putting my
> >> energy into that, here at the ASF, or putting it into a non-ASF
> >> project that is already on the right track. I know I don't have the
> >> energy to do both. ;-)
> >
> > ...
> > FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
> > graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of
> > what those
> > tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the archives.
>
> Remember that it's about the community not the code... maybe
> you should add another bullet to the list at http://
> incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html to record this
> new criterion as another entry and/or exit requirement...
>
> Seriously, I don't understand why you are talking about code maturity
> here


I'm not talking about code maturity. You might want to re-read the threads.

- IMO this isn't and shouldn't be one of the incubators concerns
> - you are here to discuss legal stuff, community issues, mentors and
> the Apache Way, no?


And the impact of giving a project the ASF brand. And the way the incubator
operates as an open door to whoever knocks, with virtually no entry
criteria.

--
Martin Cooper


Cheers,
> Erik
>
>
>
>

Re: ajax proposal?

[Erik Abele]

On 17.01.2006, at 03:04, Noel J. Bergman wrote:


Erik Abele wrote:


Noel J. Bergman wrote:

FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of
what those tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the
archives.



Remember that it's about the community not the code... maybe
you should add another bullet to [Incubation_Policy.html] to
record this new criterion as another entry and/or exit requirement


New criteria?  I agree with you that it is about community not  
code, but
that is because we believe that a good community fixes its code.   
So if
someone has strong technical objections to something, and the  
community is
not responsive to them, don't you think that represents a problem?   
For

exit, not for entry.


Oh, of course - but for now there's no community yet so he is  
complaining into the blue sky :)


I'd certainly like to see a response to the concerns raised by Martin  
but OTOH I don't think that it should evolve into a discussion about  
basic architectural principles or even impact the final consideration  
of incubation.


It's just the initial code, nothing more :)

(OK, OK - don't make me think about the IBM PR mentioning the _multi- 
million_ dollar investment for developing the derby donation.)



I don't understand why you are talking about code maturity


If you mean me specifically, you might want to re-read the context  
of what

I wrote.  :-)


Sorry, I think my mail was a bit unclear: I was primarily responding  
to Martin but I see now why you did mis-interpret my intentions...  
it's late over here :)


Cheers,
Erik



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Erik Abele wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
> > graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of
> > what those tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the
> > archives.

> Remember that it's about the community not the code... maybe
> you should add another bullet to [Incubation_Policy.html] to
> record this new criterion as another entry and/or exit requirement

New criteria?  I agree with you that it is about community not code, but
that is because we believe that a good community fixes its code.  So if
someone has strong technical objections to something, and the community is
not responsive to them, don't you think that represents a problem?  For
exit, not for entry.

> I don't understand why you are talking about code maturity

If you mean me specifically, you might want to re-read the context of what
I wrote.  :-)

--- Noel


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: ajax proposal?

[Niclas Hedhman]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 09:18, Erik Abele wrote:
> Seriously, I don't understand why you are talking about code maturity
> here - IMO this isn't and shouldn't be one of the incubators concerns
> - you are here to discuss legal stuff, community issues, mentors and
> the Apache Way, no?

Bingo!

Niclas

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Erik Abele]

On 17.01.2006, at 00:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote:


Martin Cooper wrote:


whether I get involved with the Zimbra toolkit, and try to help them
see the light, I need to make a personal decision between putting my
energy into that, here at the ASF, or putting it into a non-ASF
project that is already on the right track. I know I don't have the
energy to do both. ;-)


...
FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of  
what those

tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the archives.


Remember that it's about the community not the code... maybe  
you should add another bullet to the list at http:// 
incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html to record this  
new criterion as another entry and/or exit requirement...


Seriously, I don't understand why you are talking about code maturity  
here - IMO this isn't and shouldn't be one of the incubators concerns  
- you are here to discuss legal stuff, community issues, mentors and  
the Apache Way, no?


Cheers,
Erik



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > whether I get involved with the Zimbra toolkit, and try to help them
> > see the light, I need to make a personal decision between putting my
> > energy into that, here at the ASF, or putting it into a non-ASF
> > project that is already on the right track. I know I don't have the
> > energy to do both. ;-)
>
> If you take your comment to a conclusion, you could be saying that if you
> don't have time to contribute here, the project should be rejected.
>
> Yes, I agree that I've reduced your comment to the absurd conclusion, and
> one which you most certainly did not intend.


Correct, I did not. The only reason I made that comment at all was because
it wasn't clear to me whether your earlier comment, encouraging me to
"contribute to fixing it", was in reference to the use of Prototype in
MyFaces or to a potential redesign of the Zimbra code, so I chose to address
both.

But what is a solution?  You appear to be against trying to incubate the
> project because of its current architecture, others appear to want to try.
> Do we accept it because they want it give it a try, or reject it without
> trying because you don't have time to help fix it?


I'll take that as rhetorical. But I'd be curious to know how many of those
who have expressed an interest in incubating Zimbra, other than the Zimbra
folks themselves, are JavaScript developers planning on contributing to the
code base, versus people who just think having an AJAX project at the ASF
would be cool, and hope other people will do the (coding) work.

Clearly I'm a lone voice here, albeit making a fair amount of noise. Given
that nobody else seems to share my views on the architecture or on the
effect of the ASF brand on the AJAX world, and given that the incubator
appears to be a "just knock and you're in" project anyway, I've assumed
pretty much from the get-go that I'm fighting a lost cause here. But that
doesn't mean I want to go quietly.

--
Martin Cooper


I'll note that although I'm not familar with Zimbra, there is another
> proposed project for the Incubator that I am familar with, due to working
> with another project that uses it, and I seriously dislike it (I'd never
> use
> it).  Yes, I'm being intentionally vague, because I don't want to
> prejudice
> it, and there are other people quite keen to incubate the project.
>
> FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
> graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of what those
> tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the archives.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Martin Cooper wrote:

> whether I get involved with the Zimbra toolkit, and try to help them
> see the light, I need to make a personal decision between putting my
> energy into that, here at the ASF, or putting it into a non-ASF
> project that is already on the right track. I know I don't have the
> energy to do both. ;-)

If you take your comment to a conclusion, you could be saying that if you
don't have time to contribute here, the project should be rejected.

Yes, I agree that I've reduced your comment to the absurd conclusion, and
one which you most certainly did not intend.

But what is a solution?  You appear to be against trying to incubate the
project because of its current architecture, others appear to want to try.
Do we accept it because they want it give it a try, or reject it without
trying because you don't have time to help fix it?

I'll note that although I'm not familar with Zimbra, there is another
proposed project for the Incubator that I am familar with, due to working
with another project that uses it, and I seriously dislike it (I'd never use
it).  Yes, I'm being intentionally vague, because I don't want to prejudice
it, and there are other people quite keen to incubate the project.

FWIW, I would want to see your technical concerns addressed before
graduation, but so far, we have had little if any discussion of what those
tecnical issues really are, or so it seems from the archives.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Marinschek]

I'd be very happy to have a discussion on technical points as well.

regards,

Martin

On 1/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I don't believe that the ASF should be a place for "crowning"
> > > staid and mature projects.  I would like to see continued
> > > innovation here, too.
>
> > I agree with you. Unfortunately, from what I've seen from looking
> > at Zimbra, it's more like the first generation way of doing DHTML
> > frameworks. I'd prefer not to have that become the de facto standard
>
> These are fair points, but as I've said in some other e-mails today, why are
> they fatal, rather than things that can be addressed during Incubation?  Are
> you saying that the community is fatally flawed and cannot evolve?  Isn't
> that a bit like saying that we should reject Struts because JSF is the
> newer, better way, and we don't believe that the Struts community can evolve
> outside their box?
>
> FWIW, if one of the Zimbra folks is out there reading these messages, I
> would like to see some sort of technical response to some of the concerns
> that have been raised regarding the current Zimbra approach, and where the
> overall AJAX technology appears to be evolving.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Martin Cooper wrote:

> Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't believe that the ASF should be a place for "crowning"
> > staid and mature projects.  I would like to see continued
> > innovation here, too.

> I agree with you. Unfortunately, from what I've seen from looking
> at Zimbra, it's more like the first generation way of doing DHTML
> frameworks. I'd prefer not to have that become the de facto standard

These are fair points, but as I've said in some other e-mails today, why are
they fatal, rather than things that can be addressed during Incubation?  Are
you saying that the community is fatally flawed and cannot evolve?  Isn't
that a bit like saying that we should reject Struts because JSF is the
newer, better way, and we don't believe that the Struts community can evolve
outside their box?

FWIW, if one of the Zimbra folks is out there reading these messages, I
would like to see some sort of technical response to some of the concerns
that have been raised regarding the current Zimbra approach, and where the
overall AJAX technology appears to be evolving.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > I *care* about the quality of what we build here at the ASF. [X]
> > can very easily cause problems when [...]
>
> I have no problem with either of the above (redacted) sentences.  However,
> the answer, in my view, is not to wait for X to become perfected
> elsewhere.
> Rather, if there is something wrong, and it is here, contribute to fixing
> it, even if the contributions are just kibbitzing.


Which is exactly what I've been doing over in MyFaces-land, by explaining
(or trying to explain, anyway) the issues with the use of Prototype in the
MyFaces ecosystem. I'm not a MyFaces committer, and I don't even use JSF,
but I'm still trying to help.

As for whether I get involved with the Zimbra toolkit, and try to help them
see the light, I need to make a personal decision between putting my energy
into that, here at the ASF, or putting it into a non-ASF project that is
already on the right track. I know I don't have the energy to do both. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


Even if you don't contribute code, if you raise perfectly valid issues, and
> they are ignored, that would be an indicator that the project is not
> right.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Upayavira wrote:

> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > Hopefully before graduation we'll get a couple more AJAX projects
> > coming in and getting all married together or co-existing/competing
> > under the same TLP umbrella.

> And surely it doesn't make sense to have multiple (potentially
> competing) AJAX frameworks under the same TLP?

Agreed.  If multiple AJAX related projects "got married", to use Sanjiva's turn 
of phrase, that would be fine.  But competing projects under the same TLP would 
rarely make sense, since a TLP should be one community.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Martin Cooper wrote:

> I *care* about the quality of what we build here at the ASF. [X]
> can very easily cause problems when [...]

I have no problem with either of the above (redacted) sentences.  However,
the answer, in my view, is not to wait for X to become perfected elsewhere.
Rather, if there is something wrong, and it is here, contribute to fixing
it, even if the contributions are just kibbitzing.

Even if you don't contribute code, if you raise perfectly valid issues, and
they are ignored, that would be an indicator that the project is not right.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Andrew Clark wrote:

> I thought the whole purpose of the Incubator was to allow
> potential code time to breathe and its respective community
> to get some legs behind it.

Yes.  People seem to be viewing proposals as if they were ready to leave the 
Incubator, not just ready to enter it.

Personally, I've always felt that if there are ASF Members who are interested 
in something, we should be trying to enable their efforts to try.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Andrew Clark]

There's no guarantee that any particular project will even
exit incubation. So I don't agree that a bit of code entering 
incubation is a defacto endorsement by Apache.

I thought the whole purpose of the Incubator was to allow
potential code time to breathe and its respective community
to get some legs behind it. I think submissions should be
voted up or down to enter incubation based on whether we 
think the technology is a fit for Apache. And, personally,
I think AJAX is the perfect fit.

Let the project succeed or fail on its merits, not because
we're waiting for the perfect implementation to fall into
our laps.

That's my two yen.

- Original Message -
From: Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:06:50 PM
Subject: Re: ajax proposal?



On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites
>>> later, and there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.
>>>
>>> The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain
>>> of sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.
>
> +1; I don't see this as a crowning at all.

Bringing something to the ASF immediately raises its profile in the world, 
and many people look at that as a badge of merit, and will assume that 
this must be the right way to do things.

--
Martin Cooper


>> I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.
>
> Me too.
>
> When the time's right, I'll be happy to help sponsor/mentor this project
> with the idea of heading for an AJAX TLP at some point. Hopefully before
> graduation we'll get a couple more AJAX projects coming in and getting
> all married together or co-existing/competing under the same TLP
> umbrella. Given we have dozens of Webapp frameworks for Java server
> side, I don't see how the world will end up with less than dozens of
> AJAX frameworks. First entrant to the new project will not be a
> guaranteed "winner" as there will be no single "winner."
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
Andy Clark * Zimbra * [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:


On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:

On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites
later, and there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.

The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain
of sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.


+1; I don't see this as a crowning at all.


Bringing something to the ASF immediately raises its profile in the world, 
and many people look at that as a badge of merit, and will assume that 
this must be the right way to do things.


--
Martin Cooper



I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.


Me too.

When the time's right, I'll be happy to help sponsor/mentor this project
with the idea of heading for an AJAX TLP at some point. Hopefully before
graduation we'll get a couple more AJAX projects coming in and getting
all married together or co-existing/competing under the same TLP
umbrella. Given we have dozens of Webapp frameworks for Java server
side, I don't see how the world will end up with less than dozens of
AJAX frameworks. First entrant to the new project will not be a
guaranteed "winner" as there will be no single "winner."

Sanjiva.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Jim Jagielski wrote:



On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:


Martin Cooper wrote:

On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??

I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.


Once we have had a chance to digest all the input and finish dotting the 
I's and crossing the T's from a legal perspective, Adam or I will come back 
to ask for a vote.



Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
not.
I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and that 
plenty
of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature, IMHO) 
de

facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)


Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites later, and 
there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.


The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain of sand 
that will lead to the production of a pearl.




I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.


Oh, I am too. I'd just prefer to start off on the right foot.

--
Martin Cooper



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Martin Marinschek wrote:


We could of course also set-up quality standards which have to be
fullfilled before the project _leaves_ incubation. That's a good bar
to set...

As the name "MyFaces" has been mentioned quite a bit, I'll explain our
situation. We currently use the prototype framework (one of the widely
used projects in the market, which Martin Cooper by the way doesn't
like either, due to namespacing issues). So, if Zimbra has the same
problems, we don't really have a need for the library.


Whether I like Prototype or not isn't really the point. The point is that 
I *care* about the quality of what we build here at the ASF. Prototype 
can very easily cause problems when combined with other JavaScript code, 
and this situation is even worse in a portlet environment, so I simply 
want to make sure that the MyFaces team isn't setting itself up for 
problems by relying on it.


--
Martin Cooper



We are hoping for a major donation regarding javascript with ADF Faces
- haven't had any chance to look on the sourcecode so far, though.
Maybe this will settle all our javascript needs and we'll stop looking
out for anything else.

regards,

Martin

On 1/5/06, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:


On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??

..

Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or


We are part of that market - and I have no illusions about our ability to
set standards; we canot; we ONLY seem to do so when we happen to a) to
jump on the boat with the right technology and b) get the market to play
in our playground. (Marginally helped of course by the fact that so many
talented peopel and companies come to play here that we do set the odd's
for 'a' and have 'b' causal).

If your argument is that the quality of Zimbra code is relatively low; or
too immature by itself - and that is why you worry about spoiling the
market by betting on the wrong horse - then we should simply reject -this-
proposal based on the fact that there is a) not enough quality in the
donation and b) no hope for it to improve in our playground.

But in general - having the ASF offer it's eco system a place where we all
can work on Ajax (and have synergy with all the portal code we have, with
MyFaces^H^H^H^H^H^HOurFaces) seems like the right thing to do -when- there
are sufficient people interested to work on it. Which is the right
validating feedback loop.

Dw.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:



On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:


On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??

..

Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or


We are part of that market - and I have no illusions about our ability to
set standards; we canot; we ONLY seem to do so when we happen to a) to
jump on the boat with the right technology and b) get the market to play
in our playground. (Marginally helped of course by the fact that so many
talented peopel and companies come to play here that we do set the odd's
for 'a' and have 'b' causal).

If your argument is that the quality of Zimbra code is relatively low; or
too immature by itself - and that is why you worry about spoiling the
market by betting on the wrong horse - then we should simply reject -this-
proposal based on the fact that there is a) not enough quality in the
donation and b) no hope for it to improve in our playground.


An analogy would be the Java web app environment 5 years ago, when Model 2 
frameworks came along and people realised that that was the way things 
should be done, instead of Model 1. Just as I would not have been in 
favour of bringing a Model 1 framework to the ASF at that time, I'm not in 
favour of bringing in what I consider to be a previous-generation 
JavaScript framework now. Why would we want to perpetuate the old way of 
doing things?


--
Martin Cooper


But in general - having the ASF offer it's eco system a place where we 
all can work on Ajax (and have synergy with all the portal code we have, 
with MyFaces^H^H^H^H^H^HOurFaces) seems like the right thing to do 
-when- there are sufficient people interested to work on it. Which is 
the right validating feedback loop.


Dw.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Upayavira]

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
>>On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>>Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites  
>>>later, and there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.
>>>
>>>The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain  
>>>of sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.
> 
> 
> +1; I don't see this as a crowning at all. 
> 
> 
>>I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.
> 
> 
> Me too. 
> 
> When the time's right, I'll be happy to help sponsor/mentor this project
> with the idea of heading for an AJAX TLP at some point. Hopefully before
> graduation we'll get a couple more AJAX projects coming in and getting
> all married together or co-existing/competing under the same TLP
> umbrella. Given we have dozens of Webapp frameworks for Java server
> side, I don't see how the world will end up with less than dozens of
> AJAX frameworks. First entrant to the new project will not be a
> guaranteed "winner" as there will be no single "winner."

And surely it doesn't make sense to have multiple (potentially
competing) AJAX frameworks under the same TLP? As an analogy, Cocoon and
Struts in the same TLP would strike me as somewhat odd.

Regards, Upayavira

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 14:36 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites  
> > later, and there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.
> >
> > The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain  
> > of sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.

+1; I don't see this as a crowning at all. 

> I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.

Me too. 

When the time's right, I'll be happy to help sponsor/mentor this project
with the idea of heading for an AJAX TLP at some point. Hopefully before
graduation we'll get a couple more AJAX projects coming in and getting
all married together or co-existing/competing under the same TLP
umbrella. Given we have dozens of Webapp frameworks for Java server
side, I don't see how the world will end up with less than dozens of
AJAX frameworks. First entrant to the new project will not be a
guaranteed "winner" as there will be no single "winner."

Sanjiva.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Jim Jagielski]

On Jan 5, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:


Martin Cooper wrote:

On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do  
with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and  
decision??

I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.


Once we have had a chance to digest all the input and finish  
dotting the I's and crossing the T's from a legal perspective, Adam  
or I will come back to ask for a vote.


Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX  
framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal  
of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will  
create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we  
like it or

not.
I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and  
that plenty
of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature,  
IMHO) de

facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)


Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites  
later, and there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.


The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain  
of sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.




I am a big +1 on the ASF getting "involved" with AJAX.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Sam Ruby]

Martin Cooper wrote:

On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??


I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.


Once we have had a chance to digest all the input and finish dotting the 
I's and crossing the T's from a legal perspective, Adam or I will come 
back to ask for a vote.



Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
not.

I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and that plenty
of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature, IMHO) de
facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)


Sanjiva and I have experience with Apache SOAP.  Two rewrites later, and 
there is a thriving community working on Apache Axis2.


The goal here is not to "crown" anything, but to provide the grain of 
sand that will lead to the production of a pearl.


- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Marinschek]

We could of course also set-up quality standards which have to be
fullfilled before the project _leaves_ incubation. That's a good bar
to set...

As the name "MyFaces" has been mentioned quite a bit, I'll explain our
situation. We currently use the prototype framework (one of the widely
used projects in the market, which Martin Cooper by the way doesn't
like either, due to namespacing issues). So, if Zimbra has the same
problems, we don't really have a need for the library.

We are hoping for a major donation regarding javascript with ADF Faces
- haven't had any chance to look on the sourcecode so far, though.
Maybe this will settle all our javascript needs and we'll stop looking
out for anything else.

regards,

Martin

On 1/5/06, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
> > > the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??
> ..
> > Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
> > this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
> > right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
> > facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
>
> We are part of that market - and I have no illusions about our ability to
> set standards; we canot; we ONLY seem to do so when we happen to a) to
> jump on the boat with the right technology and b) get the market to play
> in our playground. (Marginally helped of course by the fact that so many
> talented peopel and companies come to play here that we do set the odd's
> for 'a' and have 'b' causal).
>
> If your argument is that the quality of Zimbra code is relatively low; or
> too immature by itself - and that is why you worry about spoiling the
> market by betting on the wrong horse - then we should simply reject -this-
> proposal based on the fact that there is a) not enough quality in the
> donation and b) no hope for it to improve in our playground.
>
> But in general - having the ASF offer it's eco system a place where we all
> can work on Ajax (and have synergy with all the portal code we have, with
> MyFaces^H^H^H^H^H^HOurFaces) seems like the right thing to do -when- there
> are sufficient people interested to work on it. Which is the right
> validating feedback loop.
>
> Dw.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:

> On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
> > the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??
..
> Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
> this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
> right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
> facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or

We are part of that market - and I have no illusions about our ability to
set standards; we canot; we ONLY seem to do so when we happen to a) to
jump on the boat with the right technology and b) get the market to play
in our playground. (Marginally helped of course by the fact that so many
talented peopel and companies come to play here that we do set the odd's
for 'a' and have 'b' causal).

If your argument is that the quality of Zimbra code is relatively low; or
too immature by itself - and that is why you worry about spoiling the
market by betting on the wrong horse - then we should simply reject -this-
proposal based on the fact that there is a) not enough quality in the
donation and b) no hope for it to improve in our playground.

But in general - having the ASF offer it's eco system a place where we all
can work on Ajax (and have synergy with all the portal code we have, with
MyFaces^H^H^H^H^H^HOurFaces) seems like the right thing to do -when- there
are sufficient people interested to work on it. Which is the right
validating feedback loop.

Dw.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/4/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>
> > Martin Cooper wrote:
> > > Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX
> > > framework at this point in time. The area is relatively new
> > > and in a great deal of flux right now, and "crowning" one of
> > > them with the ASF brand will create a de facto standard instead
> > > of letting the market decide, whether we like it or not.
>
> > I am confused - why can't there be multiple ajax projects at somepoint?
>
> No reason.  Martin expressed his personal view.  Personally, I disagree
> with
> his view.  I don't believe that the ASF should be a place for "crowning"
> staid and mature projects.  I would like to see continued innovation here,
> too.


I agree with you. Unfortunately, from what I've seen from looking at Zimbra,
it's more like the first generation way of doing DHTML  frameworks. I'd
prefer not to have that become the de facto standard, and have the ASF
innovate in the wide open playing field of the next generation frameworks
that are out there now. Yes - let's innovate!

AJAX is an interesting area, with potential impact for Portals, WS, MyFaces,
> and elsewhere.  Last Fall, we had someone wanting to contribute a
> JavaScript
> version of LOG4J, and nowhere to go.  An AJAX project would have provided
> a
> natural home.


It might have provided a sponsoring PMC, but it's not at all obvious that it
would have provided a natural home. Just because they're both written in
JavaScript doesn't mean they have any more in common than that. Jakarta for
JavaScript? ;-)

But yes, AJAX, or more generally, DHTML, is definitely an interesting area.
In addition to the projects you mention above, Struts, Tapestry, Cocoon and
Jakarta Commons are all working in this area (and all of those are looking
at, or already using, next-generation AJAX frameworks).

--
Martin Cooper


--- Noel
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/4/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
> >> the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.
> >
> > Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework
> at
> > this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of
> flux
> > right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a
> de
> > facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it
> or
> > not.
> >
> > I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and that
> plenty
> > of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature, IMHO)
> de
> > facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)
> >
> I am confused - why can't there be multiple ajax projects at somepoint?


I don't recall saying there could not. What I am saying is that, were one to
come here now, it would rapidly become the de facto standard simply by
virtue of being here at the ASF. And once there is a de facto standard, many
people won't even bother to look elsewhere, or bother to evaluate its merits
or lack of them, because they've already got license, so to speak, to use
ASF software.

In fact, if we have to have Zimbra here, I would be right with you in hoping
something better turns up sooner rather than later. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


As the perlers say, "there is more than one way to do things." See my
> note in a previous thread about multiple web app frameworks, etc, etc[1].
>
> - Dan
>
> 1.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200512.mbox/[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
>
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dan Diephouse
> Envoi Solutions LLC
> http://netzooid.com
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

RE: ajax proposal?

[Noel J. Bergman]

Dan Diephouse wrote:

> Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX
> > framework at this point in time. The area is relatively new
> > and in a great deal of flux right now, and "crowning" one of
> > them with the ASF brand will create a de facto standard instead
> > of letting the market decide, whether we like it or not.

> I am confused - why can't there be multiple ajax projects at somepoint?

No reason.  Martin expressed his personal view.  Personally, I disagree with
his view.  I don't believe that the ASF should be a place for "crowning"
staid and mature projects.  I would like to see continued innovation here,
too.

AJAX is an interesting area, with potential impact for Portals, WS, MyFaces,
and elsewhere.  Last Fall, we had someone wanting to contribute a JavaScript
version of LOG4J, and nowhere to go.  An AJAX project would have provided a
natural home.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Dan Diephouse]

Martin Cooper wrote:

On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??




I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.

Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
not.

I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and that plenty
of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature, IMHO) de
facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)
  
I am confused - why can't there be multiple ajax projects at somepoint? 
As the perlers say, "there is more than one way to do things." See my 
note in a previous thread about multiple web app frameworks, etc, etc[1].


- Dan

1. 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200512.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
Martin Cooper


Sanjiva.
  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





  



--
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions LLC
http://netzooid.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ajax proposal?

[Martin Cooper]

On 1/4/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
> the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??


I don't believe there is a sponsoring PMC at this point.

Personally, I would prefer that the ASF not accept _any_ AJAX framework at
this point in time. The area is relatively new and in a great deal of flux
right now, and "crowning" one of them with the ASF brand will create a de
facto standard instead of letting the market decide, whether we like it or
not.

I realise that the Incubator doesn't work that way, though, and that plenty
of people don't seem to care / mind that we'd create a (premature, IMHO) de
facto standard, but I can always hope. ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


Sanjiva.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: ajax proposal?

[Justin Erenkrantz]

--On January 5, 2006 4:32:46 AM +0600 Sanjiva Weerawarana 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



So .. amidst all of our soul searching .. what'd we decide to do with
the Ajax proposal from IBM et al.?? Did I miss the vote and decision??


Noe one has called for a vote.  -- justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]