Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
On 6/19/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aaron, I'd also like to help maintain the geronimoplugins website and work on providing patches to enable building all of the samples and configurations needed to upgrade a minimal-server to a full J2EE server. OK. I've actually got a tool now to generate the web site from the set of available plugins, so the web site maintenance is less onerous. So in the short term, it would be great to work on getting the upgrade plugin together. Basically, you need to: - create a geronimo-plugin.xml with a name and description and stuff but no module ID (you can refer to the plugins-1.1.xsd schema) - add all the needed CARs (the ones in the J2EE server but not the minimal server) as dependencies - list the unavailable module builders as obsoletes To try this out, the easiest way will be to put it in an otherwise empty JAR at META-INF/geronimo-plugin.xml and then try installing that JAR using the command-line deploy tool (deployer install-plugin yourfile.jar). Let me know how you make out. Once this is working, we should create plugin metadata files for many of the CARs on the list, which will let us install the appropriate settings into config.xml (ports and so on), as well as copying any needed files into var/* or whatever. I don't think this is super-critical (many of the important files and settings will be there already), but it will be nice to have. We should also probably create JMS+Derby and EJB+Derby upgrade packages in case people don't want to do the full Minimal->J2EE upgrade. Thanks, Aaron Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set >>> it up then this is the time to speak up. >> >> >> If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means >> only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or >> LGPL or others.. >> >> Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com >> (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When >> the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a >> dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth >> revisiting. > > > I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the > churn to create the resources at Apache now. > > I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and > make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this > thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at > Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) > >> >> For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure >> the code can handle a *list* of repositories. >> - -- >> #kenP-)} >> >> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ >> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ >> >> "Millennium hand and shrimp!" >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 >> +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP >> 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ >> DdtgCZFEIzw= >> =01nm >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >> > >
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Aaron, I'd also like to help maintain the geronimoplugins website and work on providing patches to enable building all of the samples and configurations needed to upgrade a minimal-server to a full J2EE server. -Donald Matt Hogstrom wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or LGPL or others.. Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth revisiting. I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the churn to create the resources at Apache now. I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure the code can handle a *list* of repositories. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ DdtgCZFEIzw= =01nm -END PGP SIGNATURE- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Dain Sundstrom wrote: On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: On 6/16/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/16/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default > asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's. > That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up and maintain a > plugin site, our old Geronimo releases would be able to tap into them. No need. The button in the console that gets the latest list of plugin sites will always download a current list. So both future and past Geronimo releases will tap into the "latest" repo list. whoa thats cool! great! You know what would be cool if we could have a multi select list, where I click a check box for each repo I want to see, and the console reads the list from all of them and then presents a merged result to me. Everything after that would be the same. -dain That's neat. Regards, Alan
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
On Jun 16, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: On 6/16/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/16/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default > asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's. > That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up and maintain a > plugin site, our old Geronimo releases would be able to tap into them. No need. The button in the console that gets the latest list of plugin sites will always download a current list. So both future and past Geronimo releases will tap into the "latest" repo list. whoa thats cool! great! You know what would be cool if we could have a multi select list, where I click a check box for each repo I want to see, and the console reads the list from all of them and then presents a merged result to me. Everything after that would be the same. -dain
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
No problem [1] at all. -- dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115037786601152&w=4 On 6/16/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry Dims...you did reply...my bad Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Me too. I already said i would help on the infra side. > > -- dims > > On 6/16/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not sure what it would take but, if we decide to have one hosted at >> the ASF I'll be happy to help :) >> >> Cheers! >> Hernan >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> > >> > >> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: >> > >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >> >> >>> If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set >> >>> it up then this is the time to speak up. >> >> >> >> >> >> If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means >> >> only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or >> >> LGPL or others.. >> >> >> >> Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com >> >> (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When >> >> the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a >> >> dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth >> >> revisiting. >> > >> > >> > I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the >> > churn to create the resources at Apache now. >> > >> > I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and >> > make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of >> this >> > thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at >> > Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) >> > >> >> >> >> For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure >> >> the code can handle a *list* of repositories. >> >> - -- >> >> #kenP-)} >> >> >> >> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ >> >> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ >> >> >> >> "Millennium hand and shrimp!" >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) >> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> >> >> iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 >> >> +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP >> >> 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ >> >> DdtgCZFEIzw= >> >> =01nm >> >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Sorry Dims...you did reply...my bad Davanum Srinivas wrote: Me too. I already said i would help on the infra side. -- dims On 6/16/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not sure what it would take but, if we decide to have one hosted at the ASF I'll be happy to help :) Cheers! Hernan Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set >>> it up then this is the time to speak up. >> >> >> If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means >> only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or >> LGPL or others.. >> >> Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com >> (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When >> the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a >> dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth >> revisiting. > > > I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the > churn to create the resources at Apache now. > > I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and > make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this > thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at > Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) > >> >> For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure >> the code can handle a *list* of repositories. >> - -- >> #kenP-)} >> >> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ >> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ >> >> "Millennium hand and shrimp!" >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 >> +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP >> 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ >> DdtgCZFEIzw= >> =01nm >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >> >
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
On 6/16/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/16/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default > asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's. > That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up and maintain a > plugin site, our old Geronimo releases would be able to tap into them. No need. The button in the console that gets the latest list of plugin sites will always download a current list. So both future and past Geronimo releases will tap into the "latest" repo list. whoa thats cool! great! As a side note, it's possible that the lists will be different for 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, etc. -- that we'll have separate plugin repositories for each major release of Geronimo just to reduce the "clutter" of trying to combine them. I suspect that major releases of Geronimo will introduce enough change (e.g. in the classes serialized as part of a module) that plugins will at least need to be rebuilt between major releases of Geronimo. Still, we'll always be able to adjust the repos listed in the "1.1 repo list" file. Thanks, Aaron -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
On 6/16/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's. That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up and maintain a plugin site, our old Geronimo releases would be able to tap into them. No need. The button in the console that gets the latest list of plugin sites will always download a current list. So both future and past Geronimo releases will tap into the "latest" repo list. As a side note, it's possible that the lists will be different for 1.1, 1.2, 2.0, etc. -- that we'll have separate plugin repositories for each major release of Geronimo just to reduce the "clutter" of trying to combine them. I suspect that major releases of Geronimo will introduce enough change (e.g. in the classes serialized as part of a module) that plugins will at least need to be rebuilt between major releases of Geronimo. Still, we'll always be able to adjust the repos listed in the "1.1 repo list" file. Thanks, Aaron
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Me too. I already said i would help on the infra side. -- dims On 6/16/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not sure what it would take but, if we decide to have one hosted at the ASF I'll be happy to help :) Cheers! Hernan Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >>> If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set >>> it up then this is the time to speak up. >> >> >> If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means >> only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or >> LGPL or others.. >> >> Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com >> (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When >> the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a >> dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth >> revisiting. > > > I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the > churn to create the resources at Apache now. > > I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and > make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this > thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at > Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) > >> >> For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure >> the code can handle a *list* of repositories. >> - -- >> #kenP-)} >> >> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ >> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ >> >> "Millennium hand and shrimp!" >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 >> +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP >> 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ >> DdtgCZFEIzw= >> =01nm >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> >> >> > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Not sure what it would take but, if we decide to have one hosted at the ASF I'll be happy to help :) Cheers! Hernan Matt Hogstrom wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or LGPL or others.. Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth revisiting. I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the churn to create the resources at Apache now. I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure the code can handle a *list* of repositories. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ DdtgCZFEIzw= =01nm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or LGPL or others.. Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth revisiting. I'm of the same mind that we don't have enough content to warrant the churn to create the resources at Apache now. I think there are lots of good ideas but Aaron did create the code and make it work so I'll give him credit for that effort. The point of this thread is to identify people that want to work on the plugin repo at Apache and I don't think we've found them yet :) For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure the code can handle a *list* of repositories. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ DdtgCZFEIzw= =01nm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
On 6/16/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure the code can handle a *list* of repositories. +1 and perhaps even figure out what the url would be for the default asf site. Even if the site is not up and we are giving back 404's. That way in the future *IF* we do decide to put up and maintain a plugin site, our old Geronimo releases would be able to tap into them. -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Could we outline what "features" we have today that we may potentially want to take out and provide as a separate plugin as well as those features that we may provide directly as plugins? I think we should still host the default plugin site at the ASF. By hosting the plugin site we would not only be providing plugins (under ASL) but also a working sample site, it should be well documented, so users interested in building their own plugin site have a place to start. I also think it would be easier for developers to donate/contribute new plugins if everything (Geronimo and plugins) is under the same license. It would be cool if we could have defined for the next release what features will be available as plugins. Cheers! Hernan Matt Hogstrom wrote: I moved the plugin discussion to a separate thread so w can close on this issue. I think there are two issues regarding the plugins that have stirred the pot. The first was concern over lack of communication about the plugins and I think that issue has been adequately covered and there is no need to rehash it here. The other is do we need to have plugins hosted at Apache for Geronimo. I think there is a difference in opinion on this issue so perhaps we can settle that here. IMHO it would be nice to have and makes perfect sense but at this time I'm only aware of the samples and Directory that would likely be hosted there. Perhaps DayTrader as well. So, yes it would be nice. However, there needs to be some infrastructure put in place to support it and since we've spent a lot of time saying we should have it let's put up or let this rest. I for one am not that interested in setting up the "Apache Geronimo Plugins" section on our website if there are only two or three things to be hosted there. Given that situation I'm fine to let Aaron host them on his geronimoplugins.com. If there is a need in the future then we can revisit the issue. If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If there are no takers then let's leave them at geronimoplugins.com and let this discussion rest. Any volunteers? If no one signs up in 72 hours I think we can leave this alone. Matt
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set > it up then this is the time to speak up. If 'it' is singular, then having 'it' hosted at Apache means only Apache-licensed plugins can go into it. No GPL or LGPL or others.. Based on that I think sticking with 'it' being geronimoplugins.com (although .org might be/have been better) makes sense. When the Geronimo project has a significant number -- like, say, a dozen or so -- then having an ASF repo for them might be worth revisiting. For now let's stick with geronimoplugins.com -- but make sure the code can handle a *list* of repositories. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRJKE0ZrNPMCpn3XdAQJnzwP/SaS+1r994T8VJ6VvGD+deCod/GCZs8b5 +6MfKXvjgPqg6dRPKfvrGn8UblnhT0WL+/0kZH1+230/fWmM5ngMLCIS3c/cxvmP 8M53v2UD6JPtLfyos6wgOc9bLe5JKGSbqRJms8TAIXBiX+csjC1huHqfitRyvgp/ DdtgCZFEIzw= =01nm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
Matt Hogstrom wrote: I moved the plugin discussion to a separate thread so w can close on this issue. I think there are two issues regarding the plugins that have stirred the pot. The first was concern over lack of communication about the plugins and I think that issue has been adequately covered and there is no need to rehash it here. The other is do we need to have plugins hosted at Apache for Geronimo. I think there is a difference in opinion on this issue so perhaps we can settle that here. IMHO it would be nice to have and makes perfect sense but at this time I'm only aware of the samples and Directory that would likely be hosted there. Perhaps DayTrader as well. So, yes it would be nice. I should have a javamail 1.4 version available soon, which I believe needs to be handled as a plugin for a while. Having something like that in an official ASF repository seems more correct to me. I'm sure there will be other examples to follow. However, there needs to be some infrastructure put in place to support it and since we've spent a lot of time saying we should have it let's put up or let this rest. I for one am not that interested in setting up the "Apache Geronimo Plugins" section on our website if there are only two or three things to be hosted there. Given that situation I'm fine to let Aaron host them on his geronimoplugins.com. If there is a need in the future then we can revisit the issue. If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If there are no takers then let's leave them at geronimoplugins.com and let this discussion rest. Any volunteers? If no one signs up in 72 hours I think we can leave this alone. Matt
Do we need a Plugin Repo at the ASF ?
I moved the plugin discussion to a separate thread so w can close on this issue. I think there are two issues regarding the plugins that have stirred the pot. The first was concern over lack of communication about the plugins and I think that issue has been adequately covered and there is no need to rehash it here. The other is do we need to have plugins hosted at Apache for Geronimo. I think there is a difference in opinion on this issue so perhaps we can settle that here. IMHO it would be nice to have and makes perfect sense but at this time I'm only aware of the samples and Directory that would likely be hosted there. Perhaps DayTrader as well. So, yes it would be nice. However, there needs to be some infrastructure put in place to support it and since we've spent a lot of time saying we should have it let's put up or let this rest. I for one am not that interested in setting up the "Apache Geronimo Plugins" section on our website if there are only two or three things to be hosted there. Given that situation I'm fine to let Aaron host them on his geronimoplugins.com. If there is a need in the future then we can revisit the issue. If others feel that it needs to be at Apache *AND* are willing to set it up then this is the time to speak up. If there are no takers then let's leave them at geronimoplugins.com and let this discussion rest. Any volunteers? If no one signs up in 72 hours I think we can leave this alone. Matt
