Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[John D. Ament]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins 
wrote:

> > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for going forward
> >
> > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public
> perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the
> G-Server.
> > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part
> and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java
> Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also
> pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer.
> >
> > @David, is that fine for you?
>
> I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled.  The “is this ok with
> you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started.  Vote closed sharply at
> 72 hours almost to the minute.  I was home in WI on labor day weekend
> visiting family for the first time in 2 years.
>

I'm a bit confused.  Which vote are you referring to?  The decision to
retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight
forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it?

We've never voted on a name for Geronimo Config. If you want, we can run
that vote.  But short of that, I'm not sure there's more we could vote on
for this subject.  I'll also share a bit more of my view point.

- No to XBean, for reasons mentioned in the other thread.
- Yes, we should find a more creative name than Config for the project.
- I lean towards supporting Mark's POV on this more than anything, since
Config is really something he started.


>
> In all my years at Apache I’ve never closed a vote that sharply especially
> when I know there are concerns.
>
> It is clear I am the odd man out, however, and do not want to stand in the
> way the way of anyone’s fun.
>
> What I ask is the same in return.  I ask you politely to not block
> attempts on the TomEE side to create sub-projects.  I think everyone should
> be allowed to have the fun they want to have.  Anatole has’t come and tried
> to shutdown Geronimo config.  I haven’t attempted to go to OWB and shut
> down Meecrowave.  If there are people excited and willing to work on
> something on the TomEE side, please don’t try to shut it down and redirect
> it to Geronimo.
>
> I’ll contribute to what I can over on this side of the fence and think the
> change is positive.  I don’t however agree that other projects shouldn’t
> also have similar fun.
>
>
> -David
>
>

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Le 8 sept. 2017 08:45, "David Blevins"  a écrit :

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
>
> +1 for going forward
>
> Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public
perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the
G-Server.
> To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part
and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java
Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also
pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer.
>
> @David, is that fine for you?

I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled.  The “is this ok with
you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started.  Vote closed sharply at
72 hours almost to the minute.  I was home in WI on labor day weekend
visiting family for the first time in 2 years.

In all my years at Apache I’ve never closed a vote that sharply especially
when I know there are concerns.

It is clear I am the odd man out, however, and do not want to stand in the
way the way of anyone’s fun.

What I ask is the same in return.  I ask you politely to not block attempts
on the TomEE side to create sub-projects.  I think everyone should be
allowed to have the fun they want to have.  Anatole has’t come and tried to
shutdown Geronimo config.  I haven’t attempted to go to OWB and shut down
Meecrowave.  If there are people excited and willing to work on something
on the TomEE side, please don’t try to shut it down and redirect it to
Geronimo.

I’ll contribute to what I can over on this side of the fence and think the
change is positive.  I don’t however agree that other projects shouldn’t
also have similar fun.



This is not what was said but that subprojects should be consistent like
cellar for karaf for instance. If it is just a community thing G is a
consistent solution for asf avoid avoids the errors we did last 4 years. At
least we try to fix them this way for now.

We can rework the communities interactions if it is the issue bit we
shouldnt pollute all projects probably and workarou d asf too much with
this model everywhere IMHO.



-David

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[David Blevins]

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg  wrote:
> 
> +1 for going forward
> 
> Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public 
> perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the 
> G-Server. 
> To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part and 
> move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java 
> Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also 
> pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer.
> 
> @David, is that fine for you?

I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled.  The “is this ok with you” 
sent 5 minutes after the vote already started.  Vote closed sharply at 72 hours 
almost to the minute.  I was home in WI on labor day weekend visiting family 
for the first time in 2 years.

In all my years at Apache I’ve never closed a vote that sharply especially when 
I know there are concerns.

It is clear I am the odd man out, however, and do not want to stand in the way 
the way of anyone’s fun.  

What I ask is the same in return.  I ask you politely to not block attempts on 
the TomEE side to create sub-projects.  I think everyone should be allowed to 
have the fun they want to have.  Anatole has’t come and tried to shutdown 
Geronimo config.  I haven’t attempted to go to OWB and shut down Meecrowave.  
If there are people excited and willing to work on something on the TomEE side, 
please don’t try to shut it down and redirect it to Geronimo.

I’ll contribute to what I can over on this side of the fence and think the 
change is positive.  I don’t however agree that other projects shouldn’t also 
have similar fun.


-David

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Mark Struberg]

+1 for going forward

Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public perception 
about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the G-Server. 
To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part and 
move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java Components. 
And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also pimp the 
geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer.

@David, is that fine for you?

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 30.08.2017 um 20:55 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> XBean is way more than config (it could be split in 3 or 4 projects if you 
> just split it "logically"/by concerns) but the config overlap with config 
> spec sounds too important to compete and since we'll not promote XBean 
> features until it is in the spec I agree it wouldn't be sane.
> 
> So sounds we are all good.
> 
> Side note: we can still rename it to something fun like mapee with a map 
> logo? Joke apart we don't need to keep geronimo in the "main" name if 
> somebody has a nice idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> 
> 2017-08-30 20:50 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau  
> wrote:
> 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
> All,
> 
> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?
> 
> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is some of 
> our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a 
> revitalization effort to restore the name.
> 
> The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so 
> keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is pretty 
> cool IMHO.
> 
> I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:
> 
> - Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece (I 
> guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
> - Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just 
> finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.  
> - Migrate Config to another PMC.
> - Start a new PMC/project just for config.
> 
> Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?
> 
> Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If config 
> is ready we can just let it be released.
> 
> So then are we in agreement, leave it as Geronimo Config and move forward 
> with it?  MP Config 1.1 is about to be released, so maybe we cut a release 
> right after that?
> 
> I spoke with David offline.  While he raised some concerns about using XBean 
> and that being where most of the common functionality lived, there's some 
> legacy issues with in XBean.  its a sub-project by itself.  Its not an 
> umbrella, so putting config within that would mean we have to release all of 
> XBean but releasing config separately makes sense. I confirmed with Mark 
> today.
> 
> So... let's continue to call it Geronimo Config for now.  We can address 
> later.
>  
>  
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg  wrote:
> 
> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in 
> > the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> 
> 
> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply 
> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original 
> arguments again:
> 
> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead 
> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.
> 
> There are a few things I want to ensure:
> 
> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs 
> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of projects 
> need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever we do, we 
> should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the o.a.geronimo 
> groupId
> 
> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common parts, 
> like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically 
> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form an 
> own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently have 
> quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity because we 
> exactly do NOT have such a place.
> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That 
> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in 
> dealing with TCKs and stuff.
> 
> Now here is what might have been misunderstood:
> 
> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in 
> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to 
> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the 
> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or nothing! 
> And we also can

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

XBean is way more than config (it could be split in 3 or 4 projects if you
just split it "logically"/by concerns) but the config overlap with config
spec sounds too important to compete and since we'll not promote XBean
features until it is in the spec I agree it wouldn't be sane.

So sounds we are all good.

Side note: we can still rename it to something fun like mapee with a map
logo? Joke apart we don't need to keep geronimo in the "main" name if
somebody has a nice idea.



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-08-30 20:50 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :

>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
>
>> 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?
>>>
>>> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is
>>> some of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a
>>> revitalization effort to restore the name.
>>>
>>> The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so
>>> keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is
>>> pretty cool IMHO.
>>>
>>> I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:
>>>
>>> - Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece
>>> (I guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
>>> - Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or
>>> just finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.
>>>
>>> - Migrate Config to another PMC.
>>> - Start a new PMC/project just for config.
>>>
>>> Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?
>>>
>>
>> Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If
>> config is ready we can just let it be released.
>>
>
> So then are we in agreement, leave it as Geronimo Config and move forward
> with it?  MP Config 1.1 is about to be released, so maybe we cut a release
> right after that?
>
> I spoke with David offline.  While he raised some concerns about using
> XBean and that being where most of the common functionality lived, there's
> some legacy issues with in XBean.  its a sub-project by itself.  Its not an
> umbrella, so putting config within that would mean we have to release all
> of XBean but releasing config separately makes sense. I confirmed with Mark
> today.
>
> So... let's continue to call it Geronimo Config for now.  We can address
> later.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg  wrote:
>>>

 > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name
 in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.


 Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about
 simply renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my
 original arguments again:

 All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving
 dead corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G
 alive.

 There are a few things I want to ensure:

 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G
 specs part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of
 projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever
 we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the
 o.a.geronimo groupId

 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common
 parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically
 everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form
 an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently
 have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity
 because we exactly do NOT have such a place.
 I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC.
 That might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested
 in dealing with TCKs and stuff.

 Now here is what might have been misunderstood:

 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in
 DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to
 move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the
 active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or
 nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they
 both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names.


 Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the
 G server in the meantime (10 years after i

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:53 AM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> 2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :
>
>> All,
>>
>> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?
>>
>> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is some
>> of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a
>> revitalization effort to restore the name.
>>
>> The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so
>> keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is
>> pretty cool IMHO.
>>
>> I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:
>>
>> - Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece
>> (I guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
>> - Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just
>> finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.
>> - Migrate Config to another PMC.
>> - Start a new PMC/project just for config.
>>
>> Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?
>>
>
> Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If
> config is ready we can just let it be released.
>

So then are we in agreement, leave it as Geronimo Config and move forward
with it?  MP Config 1.1 is about to be released, so maybe we cut a release
right after that?

I spoke with David offline.  While he raised some concerns about using
XBean and that being where most of the common functionality lived, there's
some legacy issues with in XBean.  its a sub-project by itself.  Its not an
umbrella, so putting config within that would mean we have to release all
of XBean but releasing config separately makes sense. I confirmed with Mark
today.

So... let's continue to call it Geronimo Config for now.  We can address
later.


>
>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name
>>> in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply
>>> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original
>>> arguments again:
>>>
>>> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead
>>> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.
>>>
>>> There are a few things I want to ensure:
>>>
>>> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs
>>> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of
>>> projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever
>>> we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the
>>> o.a.geronimo groupId
>>>
>>> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common
>>> parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically
>>> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form
>>> an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently
>>> have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity
>>> because we exactly do NOT have such a place.
>>> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That
>>> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in
>>> dealing with TCKs and stuff.
>>>
>>> Now here is what might have been misunderstood:
>>>
>>> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in
>>> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to
>>> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the
>>> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or
>>> nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they
>>> both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the
>>> G server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best
>>> reputation. Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the
>>> Server and might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes
>>> a comeback. That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create
>>> if we name something Geronimo-bla.
>>>
>>> Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is
>>> connected with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was
>>> opposed to that proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as
>>> anybody else)
>>>
>>> I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF <<
>>> * really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE
>>> doesn't need
>>> * there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and
>>> TomEE is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those
>>> reusable components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
>>> * The reusable parts have

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2017-08-22 14:05 GMT+02:00 John D. Ament :

> All,
>
> So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?
>
> I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is some
> of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a
> revitalization effort to restore the name.
>
> The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so
> keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is
> pretty cool IMHO.
>
> I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:
>
> - Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece
> (I guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
> - Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just
> finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.
> - Migrate Config to another PMC.
> - Start a new PMC/project just for config.
>
> Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?
>

Clearly not (in particular when already solved multiple times ;)). If
config is ready we can just let it be released.


>
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name
>> in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
>>
>>
>> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply
>> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original
>> arguments again:
>>
>> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead
>> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.
>>
>> There are a few things I want to ensure:
>>
>> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs
>> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of
>> projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever
>> we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the
>> o.a.geronimo groupId
>>
>> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common
>> parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically
>> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form
>> an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently
>> have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity
>> because we exactly do NOT have such a place.
>> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That
>> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in
>> dealing with TCKs and stuff.
>>
>> Now here is what might have been misunderstood:
>>
>> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in
>> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to
>> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the
>> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or
>> nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they
>> both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names.
>>
>>
>> Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the G
>> server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best
>> reputation. Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the
>> Server and might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes
>> a comeback. That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create
>> if we name something Geronimo-bla.
>>
>> Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is
>> connected with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was
>> opposed to that proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as
>> anybody else)
>>
>> I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF <<
>> * really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE
>> doesn't need
>> * there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and
>> TomEE is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those
>> reusable components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
>> * The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate
>> lifecycle!
>>
>> In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the
>> attic. I am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick
>> the resins and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
>> >
>> > Concretely there are 2 options:
>> >
>> > - keep G and promote the project with its new goal
>> > - drop it and name it with something new
>> >
>> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name
>> in the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
>> >
>> > Wdyt?
>> >

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[John D. Ament]

All,

So what do we have to do to get this moving forward?

I think a few of us prefer to keep the Geronimo name.  Even if it is some
of our histories, legacies have you, it may be the future or perhaps a
revitalization effort to restore the name.

The name Geronimo is actually pretty import from the Apache Indians, so
keeping that name also keeps that sort of name trend alive.  Which is
pretty cool IMHO.

I think there's been a bunch of ideas thrown out:

- Do nothing.  Keep the name as is, formally retire the app server piece (I
guess this is just us reasserting the page and starting over?)
- Take a new name.  I'm not sure if this means creating a new PMC or just
finding a new name for the existing PMC, don't really care either way.
- Migrate Config to another PMC.
- Start a new PMC/project just for config.

Do we simply just need to keep those discussions going?

John

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 4:05 AM Mark Struberg  wrote:

>
> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
> the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
>
>
> Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply
> renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original
> arguments again:
>
> All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead
> corpse lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.
>
> There are a few things I want to ensure:
>
> 1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs
> part. If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of
> projects need to change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever
> we do, we should imo keep the specs at a single central place and keep the
> o.a.geronimo groupId
>
> 2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common
> parts, like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically
> everything which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form
> an own PMC. There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently
> have quite a lot smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity
> because we exactly do NOT have such a place.
> I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That
> might make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in
> dealing with TCKs and stuff.
>
> Now here is what might have been misunderstood:
>
> 3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in
> DIFFERNT PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to
> move parts of G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the
> active and still in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or
> nothing! And we also cannot move some parts to X and others to Y if they
> both use the o.a.geronimo groupId or package names.
>
>
> Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the G
> server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best
> reputation. Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the
> Server and might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes
> a comeback. That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create
> if we name something Geronimo-bla.
>
> Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is
> connected with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was
> opposed to that proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as
> anybody else)
>
> I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF <<
> * really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE
> doesn't need
> * there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and
> TomEE is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those
> reusable components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
> * The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate
> lifecycle!
>
> In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the
> attic. I am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick
> the resins and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> >
> > I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
> >
> > Concretely there are 2 options:
> >
> > - keep G and promote the project with its new goal
> > - drop it and name it with something new
> >
> > Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
> the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> >
> > Wdyt?
> >
> > Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :
> > Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo
> itself to XBean?
> >
> > I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the
> coordinates to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 P

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Mark Struberg]

> Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the 
> project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.


Well it is imo very well consistent. I also already thought about simply 
renaming the G project to something different. I try to explain my original 
arguments again:

All I wanted to prevent is to have half baked solutions and leaving dead corpse 
lying on the ground. Either we burry it properly or we keep G alive.

There are a few things I want to ensure:

1.) A (very) few artifacts are really hard to rename. Mostly the G specs part. 
If we change that groupId away from o.a.geronimo then a TON of projects need to 
change their poms. That just causes confusion. So whatever we do, we should imo 
keep the specs at a single central place and keep the o.a.geronimo groupId

2.) There should be a common place for some Enterprise related common parts, 
like the TX-Mgr, the specs, xbean-finder, the config, etc. Basically everything 
which is usable as a standalone component but too small to form an own PMC. 
There should be ONE go-to place for such parts. We currently have quite a lot 
smallish PMCs (BVal, BatchEE, etc) with low activity because we exactly do NOT 
have such a place.
I already thought about just moving those parts to the Commons PMC. That might 
make perfect sense in some regards but they are not interested in dealing with 
TCKs and stuff.

Now here is what might have been misunderstood:

3.) You cannot use the org.apache.geronimo groupId and package name in DIFFERNT 
PMCs. So that's an all-or-nothing policy. David Blevins wanted to move parts of 
G to TomEE. That's picking the resins. Either we move all the active and still 
in use parts (and moving the rest to the attic), or nothing! And we also cannot 
move some parts to X and others to Y if they both use the o.a.geronimo groupId 
or package names.


Yes, the "Geronimo" is often still connected with the G server. And the G 
server in the meantime (10 years after it's peak) has not the best reputation. 
Calling something Geronimo-bla _might_ make people think of the Server and 
might make them think that the G server is still alive or makes a comeback. 
That's not the case, but it might be the perception we create if we name 
something Geronimo-bla.

Otoh, moving all that stuff to TomEE is similar. TomEE as a brand is connected 
with the end user product, the TomEE server. That's why I was opposed to that 
proposal. (But note that I only have exactly ONE -1, as anybody else)

I could think about moving all the active G parts to TomEE,   >> IF << 
* really ALL the active parts are handed over, also the stuff TomEE doesn't need
* there is a separate brand associated with the reusable components, and TomEE 
is just the responsible PMC. It must really be clear that those reusable 
components are usable even independent of the TomEE server.
* The reusable parts have separate SCM repositories and a separate lifecycle!

In that case we could move the G server and the inactive parts to the attic. I 
am fine with that. What I don't want is to have some projects pick the resins 
and leave a half dead bloody corpse on the ground.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.08.2017 um 07:08 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau :
> 
> I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?
> 
> Concretely there are 2 options:
> 
> - keep G and promote the project with its new goal
> - drop it and name it with something new
> 
> Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in the 
> project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.
> 
> Wdyt?
> 
> Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :
> Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo itself 
> to XBean?  
> 
> I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates to 
> org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg  wrote:
> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle from 
> the rest of xbean.
> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same 
> version.
> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins :
> >
> > Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with the 
> > app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is usually 
> > an uphill battle.
> >
> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open to 
> > other names as well.
> >
> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the 
> > same version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0 
> > would still be fine.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
> 

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

I wouldnt go with xbean. Why not naming it if you dont want of G?

Concretely there are 2 options:

- keep G and promote the project with its new goal
- drop it and name it with something new

Not a fan of last one since ultimately it means we must drop the name in
the project and is not consistent with last months discussions IMHO.

Wdyt?

Le 9 août 2017 02:33, "John D. Ament"  a écrit :

> Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo
> itself to XBean?
>
> I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates
> to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg  wrote:
>
>> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle
>> from the rest of xbean.
>> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same
>> version.
>> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins :
>> >
>> > Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with
>> the app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is
>> usually an uphill battle.
>> >
>> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open
>> to other names as well.
>> >
>> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the
>> same version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0
>> would still be fine.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Blevins
>> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
>> > http://www.tomitribe.com
>> >
>>
>>

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[John D. Ament]

Not to stir that pot, but does it make sense to just rename Geronimo itself
to XBean?

I'm assuming then for config you're talking about changing the coordinates
to org.apache.xbean:xbean-config(-impl) ?

John

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 7:15 PM Mark Struberg  wrote:

> Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle
> from the rest of xbean.
> Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same
> version.
> Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins :
> >
> > Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with
> the app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is
> usually an uphill battle.
> >
> > If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open
> to other names as well.
> >
> > If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the
> same version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0
> would still be fine.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Blevins
> > http://twitter.com/dblevins
> > http://www.tomitribe.com
> >
>
>

Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?

[Mark Struberg]

Perfectly fine for me. I'd still give it a different release lifecycle from the 
rest of xbean.
Actually it makes not much sense for the rest of xbean to share the same 
version.
Most of the components do not have any common ground with each other.

LieGrue,
strub

 
> Am 09.08.2017 um 01:11 schrieb David Blevins :
> 
> Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with the 
> app server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is usually 
> an uphill battle.
> 
> If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open to 
> other names as well.
> 
> If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the same 
> version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0 would still 
> be fine.
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Blevins
> http://twitter.com/dblevins
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 

Renaming Geronimo Config?

[David Blevins]

Can we rename Geronimo Config?  I think the name is strongly stuck with the app 
server.  From experience in EJB land, try to repurpose names is usually an 
uphill battle.

If we wanted to go with the grain, we could call it XBean Config.  Open to 
other names as well.

If we did call it XBean Config, I’m not sure there’s a need to have the same 
version as the other xbean components.  We could, but I think 1.0 would still 
be fine.


-- 
David Blevins
http://twitter.com/dblevins
http://www.tomitribe.com