Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-16 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Dec 15, 2003, at 4:23 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 13 Dec 2003, at 22:22, Martin Poeschl wrote:

what do you mean?
the code works. it is used by other projects .. and basically 
development slowed down as the developers are waiting for the jcache 
spec ... so i don't think there is any problem as long as there are 
developers maintaining the code
IMHO

1 the pmc is unable to demonstrate oversight.
2 there are a large number of pmc people who believe that umbrella 
sub-projects don't work.

as far as i was concerned the consensus was that whatever the JCS team 
wanted was cool provided that it addressed 1 + 2. promotion to 
sub-project status satisfies 2 and having henning and other turbineers 
volunteer to provide oversight satisfies 1.

If you solve 1, then 2 can be demonstrated.  No need to do anything but 
ensure PMC oversight.

geir

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-15 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 13 Dec 2003, at 22:22, Martin Poeschl wrote:

robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote:

hi henning

you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've
heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :)


Hi,

thanks. :-)

I'm willing to subscribe to JCS for watching the developers there and
help them getting out a release. We should try to get genuine 
interest
from their side to push JCS ahead.


it'll either have to go forward or go back. the pmc can't really 
allow it to drift any more. if there isn't any activity then we'll 
reluctantly have to think about taking action.
what do you mean?
the code works. it is used by other projects .. and basically 
development slowed down as the developers are waiting for the jcache 
spec ... so i don't think there is any problem as long as there are 
developers maintaining the code
IMHO

1 the pmc is unable to demonstrate oversight.
2 there are a large number of pmc people who believe that umbrella 
sub-projects don't work.

as far as i was concerned the consensus was that whatever the JCS team 
wanted was cool provided that it addressed 1 + 2. promotion to 
sub-project status satisfies 2 and having henning and other turbineers 
volunteer to provide oversight satisfies 1.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-13 Thread Martin Poeschl
robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote:

hi henning

you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've
heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :)


Hi,

thanks. :-)

I'm willing to subscribe to JCS for watching the developers there and
help them getting out a release. We should try to get genuine interest
from their side to push JCS ahead.


it'll either have to go forward or go back. the pmc can't really allow 
it to drift any more. if there isn't any activity then we'll 
reluctantly have to think about taking action.
what do you mean?
the code works. it is used by other projects .. and basically 
development slowed down as the developers are waiting for the jcache 
spec ... so i don't think there is any problem as long as there are 
developers maintaining the code


Just as you I'm currently spread out between a few hats but I'll try to
squeeze in some time to help here.


great :)

i know that i've been pushing very, very hard recently but i really 
have the new year in my mind as a significant landmark. i'd really 
like to be able to face the new year with the major fundamental issues 
basically fixed. i'm certainly no willing to continue to be this 
stretched for much longer. i'm hoping that the current period is just 
a transitionary phase.

i've been worried about oversight of turbine for some time (and i know 
some other people have as well) but JCS seems like it's the only real 
issue left (providing that turbineers are willing to serve on the 
pmc). if possible i'd like to see if we can't some kind of release 
(0.9?) out very soon and then push for promotion very soon in the new 
year.
+1

martin

- robert

-
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: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-13 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 12 Dec 2003, at 09:28, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote:
hi henning

you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've
heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :)
Hi,

thanks. :-)

I'm willing to subscribe to JCS for watching the developers there and
help them getting out a release. We should try to get genuine interest
from their side to push JCS ahead.
it'll either have to go forward or go back. the pmc can't really allow 
it to drift any more. if there isn't any activity then we'll 
reluctantly have to think about taking action.

Just as you I'm currently spread out between a few hats but I'll try to
squeeze in some time to help here.
great :)

i know that i've been pushing very, very hard recently but i really 
have the new year in my mind as a significant landmark. i'd really like 
to be able to face the new year with the major fundamental issues 
basically fixed. i'm certainly no willing to continue to be this 
stretched for much longer. i'm hoping that the current period is just a 
transitionary phase.

i've been worried about oversight of turbine for some time (and i know 
some other people have as well) but JCS seems like it's the only real 
issue left (providing that turbineers are willing to serve on the pmc). 
if possible i'd like to see if we can't some kind of release (0.9?) out 
very soon and then push for promotion very soon in the new year.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-12 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 21:07, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> hi henning
> 
> you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've  
> heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :)

Hi,

thanks. :-)

I'm willing to subscribe to JCS for watching the developers there and
help them getting out a release. We should try to get genuine interest
from their side to push JCS ahead.

Just as you I'm currently spread out between a few hats but I'll try to
squeeze in some time to help here.

Regards
Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

"Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen." 
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht.
   (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)



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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-11 Thread robert burrell donkin
hi henning

you don't need to be a committer to act as a mentor. from what i've  
heard, i'd say that you'd be an ideal candidate :)

we need more eyes on more lists. what worries folks (including myself)  
is that there aren't really very many pmc eyes on the JCS list. this  
means that there's no one there either to provide oversight and to keep  
them on the straight and narrow - but also there's no one there to  
point them in the right direction when it comes to issues like release  
management and current ASF policies or to help with stuff.

there's also quite a large chance that we'll have to restrict binding  
votes to pmc members only (sad, but true) sometime soonish. in this  
case, JCS will need three pmc members on list to validate votes. i'd  
rather think ahead and have enough pmc people watching the list than  
have JCS stall just as it might be turning round.

i'm willing (as a last resort) to take on this roll (if no one else  
volunteers) but i'm currently averaging 300 emails a day and i'm spread  
very thin now trying to do something similar for the other poorly  
represented jakarta sub-projects. i really want to start coding again  
so i'd really appreciate it if some other people would step up to take  
up this role for JCS.

- robert

On 10 Dec 2003, at 08:51, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

I'd do it, but I'm not personally involved in JCS. IMHO Martin Poeschl
(who is a Turbineer _and_ works with JCS) would be perfect but I know
that he will be on holidays for a longer time (either already is or  
will
be soon. Martin?).

Martin did the Turbine 2.2 release and most of the Torque releases in
the past and I did the 2.3 release of Turbine, so this might count as
"release management experience". ;-)
Regards
Henning
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 13:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
in this case, i'd say we'll need sufficient volunteers from the  
jakarta
pmc to ensure oversight during this period. it'd probably be good if
they were turbineers and if at least one had recent experience of
release management.

anyone willing to step up?

- robert

On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:28, Aaron Smuts wrote:

Sounds good.  Less disruption on the way to a release would be best.

Aaron

-Original Message-
From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you  
can
see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In  
fact
I
didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite
some
time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_
fold
it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
scare JCS users away.
I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with
this
1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).

Regards
Henning
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:

Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator,
I'm
for the
Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
sandbox
route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
sub-project.
+1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied
by a
release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding
the
jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this
would
allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.

next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the
core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd
update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons.
hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a
community
and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces.  
once
the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the
commons.

Else it would not be fair to
many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been
kept
there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
(just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox
components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when
promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a
component
is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that

RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-10 Thread Aaron Smuts
I'll be available in January to get started.  Let me know what is
involved in a release.

> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 2:51 AM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
> 
> I'd do it, but I'm not personally involved in JCS. IMHO Martin Poeschl
> (who is a Turbineer _and_ works with JCS) would be perfect but I know
> that he will be on holidays for a longer time (either already is or
will
> be soon. Martin?).
> 
> Martin did the Turbine 2.2 release and most of the Torque releases in
> the past and I did the 2.3 release of Turbine, so this might count as
> "release management experience". ;-)
> 
>   Regards
>   Henning
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 13:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > in this case, i'd say we'll need sufficient volunteers from the
jakarta
> > pmc to ensure oversight during this period. it'd probably be good if
> > they were turbineers and if at least one had recent experience of
> > release management.
> >
> > anyone willing to step up?
> >
> > - robert
> >
> > On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:28, Aaron Smuts wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good.  Less disruption on the way to a release would be
best.
> > >
> > > Aaron
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-
> > >> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM
> > >> To: Jakarta General List
> > >> Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
> > >>
> > >> IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As
you
> can
> > >> see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In
> fact
> > > I
> > >> didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for
quite
> > > some
> > >> time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's
_not_
> > > fold
> > >> it into the commons list where a completely different culture
exists
> > >> compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this
will
> > >> scare JCS users away.
> > >>
> > >> I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts
to
> > >> make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
> > >> direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
> > >> turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project
with
> > > this
> > >> 1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).
> > >>
> > >>  Regards
> > >>  Henning
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > >>> On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Given Robert's description of his experience with the
Incubator,
> > > I'm
> > >>>>> for the
> > >>>>> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather
than
> > >>>>> sandbox
> > >>>>> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
> > > sub-project.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is
accompanied
> > > by a
> > >>>> release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
> > >>>
> > >>> the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by
folding
> > > the
> > >>> jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first.
this
> > > would
> > >>> allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.
> > >>>
> > >>> next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for
the
> > >>> core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready,
we'd
> > >>> update the commons website and officially add JCS to the
commons.
> > >>> hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a
> > > community
> > >>> and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces.
once
> > >>> the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of
the
> > >>> commons.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Else it would not be fair t

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-10 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
I'd do it, but I'm not personally involved in JCS. IMHO Martin Poeschl
(who is a Turbineer _and_ works with JCS) would be perfect but I know
that he will be on holidays for a longer time (either already is or will
be soon. Martin?).

Martin did the Turbine 2.2 release and most of the Torque releases in
the past and I did the 2.3 release of Turbine, so this might count as
"release management experience". ;-)

Regards
Henning


On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 13:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> in this case, i'd say we'll need sufficient volunteers from the jakarta 
> pmc to ensure oversight during this period. it'd probably be good if 
> they were turbineers and if at least one had recent experience of 
> release management.
> 
> anyone willing to step up?
> 
> - robert
> 
> On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:28, Aaron Smuts wrote:
> 
> > Sounds good.  Less disruption on the way to a release would be best.
> >
> > Aaron
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM
> >> To: Jakarta General List
> >> Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
> >>
> >> IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can
> >> see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact
> > I
> >> didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite
> > some
> >> time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_
> > fold
> >> it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
> >> compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
> >> scare JCS users away.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
> >> make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
> >> direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
> >> turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with
> > this
> >> 1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).
> >>
> >>Regards
> >>Henning
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>> On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator,
> > I'm
> >>>>> for the
> >>>>> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
> >>>>> sandbox
> >>>>> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
> > sub-project.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied
> > by a
> >>>> release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
> >>>
> >>> the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding
> > the
> >>> jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this
> > would
> >>> allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.
> >>>
> >>> next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the
> >>> core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd
> >>> update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons.
> >>> hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a
> > community
> >>> and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once
> >>> the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the
> >>> commons.
> >>>
> >>>> Else it would not be fair to
> >>>> many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been
> > kept
> >>>> there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
> >>>
> >>> (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox
> >>> components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when
> >>> promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a
> > component
> >>> is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that
> > every
> >>> component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so
> > that
> >>> other projects have the chance to depend on a released versio

Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:



Then maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site
or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of 
Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might 
need to happen to make this practical.  I don't think that combining 
all of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would 
certainly be a pain for users and contributors who may be interested 
in only a small number of projects.  One way to attack the problem 
might be to have PMC members who are committers on the different 
Jakarta projects share the responsibility of maintaining list digests 
for periodic (weekly?) review by the full PMC and/or alerting the full 
PMC of any issues that require immediate attention.

I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of 
the lists and take up speed reading ;-)
i'd suggest that all new pmc members try subscribing to a number of 
jakarta lists that they are not committers for. ideally, subscribe to 
all dev lists and see just how many posts there are even (if you stay 
on them all only for a few days). it gives a good sense of perspective. 
if every new pmc member decided to subscribe to just one or two extra 
lists, then we'd be along way towards solving our current problems with 
demonstrating oversight (by spreading the load more evenly, we'll 
eliminate single points of failure).

i'd be interested to see the current coverage (in terms of pmc members 
subscribed to jakarta dev lists).

Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC.
it's probably old ground but i'm not sure that we've come up with any 
good solutions yet :)

questions and ideas will therefore be gratefully received :)

- robert

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


Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 21:07, Costin Manolache wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have 
a single
list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).

Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including 
releases of
each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer 
is
fading,  then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate 
karma.

A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every 
subproject.
+1 to jakarta-wide karma.
It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then 
maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site
or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists.
+1

Jakarta does have 2 "global" lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as 
many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple 
lists if needed/wanted, like commons.
i think that multiple lists divide the community and cause problems 
with oversight. my experience with jakarta commons is that a single 
list helps to create a community spirit and multiple lists divide this 
spirit. the avalon community are now strongly against multiple lists 
and turbine has moved this way also. i've read posts from people in 
both community expressing the opinion that multiple lists are 
unhealthy.

Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would 
be good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading 
currently, or to do something similar with commons, where people add 
themself to
a list of "active" people when they are involved with a component. 
This will also answer the question "who is monitoring this".
seems reasonable.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
in this case, i'd say we'll need sufficient volunteers from the jakarta 
pmc to ensure oversight during this period. it'd probably be good if 
they were turbineers and if at least one had recent experience of 
release management.

anyone willing to step up?

- robert

On 8 Dec 2003, at 15:28, Aaron Smuts wrote:

Sounds good.  Less disruption on the way to a release would be best.

Aaron

-Original Message-
From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can
see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact
I
didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite
some
time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_
fold
it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
scare JCS users away.
I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with
this
1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).

Regards
Henning
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:

Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator,
I'm
for the
Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
sandbox
route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
sub-project.
+1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied
by a
release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding
the
jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this
would
allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.

next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the
core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd
update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons.
hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a
community
and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once
the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the
commons.
Else it would not be fair to
many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been
kept
there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
(just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox
components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when
promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a
component
is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that
every
component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so
that
other projects have the chance to depend on a released version.

i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for
commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work
that
needs doing before commons-configuration is ready.

- robert



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
"Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen."
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch
spricht.

(http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)


-
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]


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


Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 8 Dec 2003, at 11:10, Christopher Lenz wrote:

Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
httpclient traffic list has been split off?  Did the httpclient
developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?
I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be 
rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to 
complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing 
list, so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being 
backed by a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none 
of the HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, 
IIRC).
IIRC the httpclient committers volunteered after a lot of strong-arming 
from the rest of the commons. IMHO this was a big mistake. it would 
have been much better if httpclient had remained on the same list (for 
as long as it had remained in the commons).

In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by 
now, but that's a different topic altogether :-)
+1 (but AFAIK no one's proposed it)

(i suspect that httpclient would have been promoted already had we not 
made the misguided decision to split off a separate mailing list.)

i've always thought that apache commons would be a perfect fit for 
httpclient...

- robert

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


Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Costin Manolache
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:


Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
fading,  then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.


+1 to jakarta-wide karma.

It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site
or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists.

Jakarta does have 2 "global" lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as 
many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple 
lists if needed/wanted, like commons.

Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would be 
good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading currently, 
or to do something similar with commons, where people add themself to
a list of "active" people when they are involved with a component. This 
will also answer the question "who is monitoring this".

Costin



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


RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Aaron Smuts
Sounds good.  Less disruption on the way to a release would be best.  

Aaron

> -Original Message-
> From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:22 AM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
> 
> IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can
> see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact
I
> didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite
some
> time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_
fold
> it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
> compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
> scare JCS users away.
> 
> I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
> make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
> direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
> turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with
this
> 1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).
> 
>   Regards
>   Henning
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> > >
> > >> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator,
I'm
> > >> for the
> > >> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
> > >> sandbox
> > >> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
sub-project.
> > >
> > > +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied
by a
> > > release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
> >
> > the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding
the
> > jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this
would
> > allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.
> >
> > next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the
> > core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd
> > update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons.
> > hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a
community
> > and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once
> > the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the
> > commons.
> >
> > > Else it would not be fair to
> > > many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been
kept
> > > there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
> >
> > (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox
> > components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when
> > promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a
component
> > is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that
every
> > component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so
that
> > other projects have the chance to depend on a released version.
> >
> > i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for
> > commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work
that
> > needs doing before commons-configuration is ready.
> >
> > - robert
> >
> >
> >
-
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
> 
> Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
> freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
> 
> "Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
> Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen."
> -- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch
spricht.
>
(http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Christopher Lenz
Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
httpclient traffic list has been split off?  Did the httpclient
developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?
I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be 
rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to 
complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing list, 
so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being backed by 
a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none of the 
HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, IIRC).

In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by 
now, but that's a different topic altogether :-)

Cheers,
  Chris
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
IMHO too complex. If there is already a JCS list (is there? As you can
see, I'm a Turbine committer but I have zero overlap with JCS. In fact I
didn't even know that this is a "turbine sub-sub project" for quite some
time ;-) ), let's keep it. We want to build community? Let's _not_ fold
it into the commons list where a completely different culture exists
compared to a "normal" project list. I'm pretty sure that this will
scare JCS users away.

I'm thinking that "making it a direct Jakarta sub project" starts to
make more and more sense. I'd propose that we move JCS in this
direction, if the JCS developers push for a 1.0 release inside
turbine-jcs and we make the transition into a Jakarta project with this
1.0 release (which would IMHO a fine reason to do so).

Regards
Henning


On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 17:16, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> >
> >> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm 
> >> for the
> >> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than 
> >> sandbox
> >> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.
> >
> > +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
> > release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
> 
> the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding the 
> jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this would 
> allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.
> 
> next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the 
> core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd 
> update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons. 
> hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a community 
> and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once 
> the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the 
> commons.
> 
> > Else it would not be fair to
> > many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
> > there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
> 
> (just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox 
> components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when 
> promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a component 
> is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that every 
> component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so that 
> other projects have the chance to depend on a released version.
> 
> i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for 
> commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work that 
> needs doing before commons-configuration is ready.
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

"Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen." 
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht.
   (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)



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



Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-08 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It would be very noisy, indeed.

Szre.

> Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com)
> 
>   struts   tomcat   commons
> user   3115 2908   375
> dev 759 1131  2112

I guess you could remove half of struts user if we added a
jakarta-friday list 8-)

Seriously, combining the user lists is not desirable at all IMHO, as
our users probably don't care too much for the projects they don't
use.

Let's look at the dev lists using nagoya's eyebrowse installation
and looking at the number of mails in Nevember 2003:

Alexandria 3
BCEL  12
BSF8
Cactus   173
Commons 2061
Commons-HTTP-Client  379
ECS0
Jetspeed 283
JMeter   276
Gump 292 (*)
Log4J146
Lucene   164
ORO3
Pluto112
POI  213
Regexp21
Slide724
Struts   431
Taglibs   35
Tapestry 110
Tomcat   982
Turbine  271
Turbine-JCS   10
Velocity 244

I think there are more lists than that.

(*) using MARC as Gump is not listed in eyebrowse.

OK, the total is 6953, more than three times the traffic of
commons-dev.  This is unless we'd really split the lists into separate
lists for bug reports, commits and ideas (I'm not sure I'd like that
idea).

Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
httpclient traffic list has been split off?  Did the httpclient
developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?

Stefan

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



Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Phil Steitz
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:


Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
fading,  then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.


+1 to jakarta-wide karma.

It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. 
It would be very noisy, indeed.  Here are some stats from October (from 
message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com)

 struts   tomcat   commons
user   3115 2908   375
dev 759 1131  2112


Then maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:

jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site
or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of 
Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might 
need to happen to make this practical.  I don't think that combining all 
of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would certainly be a 
pain for users and contributors who may be interested in only a small 
number of projects.  One way to attack the problem might be to have PMC 
members who are committers on the different Jakarta projects share the 
responsibility of maintaining list digests for periodic (weekly?) review 
by the full PMC and/or alerting the full PMC of any issues that require 
immediate attention.

I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of the 
lists and take up speed reading ;-)

Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC.

Phil


Hen

-
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]


jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Henri Yandell


On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:

> Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
> list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>
> Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
> each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
> fading,  then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
>
> A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.

+1 to jakarta-wide karma.

It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:

jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site

or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.

Hen


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Costin Manolache
robert burrell donkin wrote:

> On 4 Dec 2003, at 22:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support
>> Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.*
> 
> i think that it depends on what's meant by sub-sub-projects :)
> 
> i'm happy for a single sub-project to create many different products
> (by this i mean stuff it releases). so, component repositories like
> jakarta-commons are fine by me. (some people describe these products as
> sub-sub-projects.)
> 
> but i think that each sub-project should only have one list of
> committers (though for reasons of security, if a sub-project has more
> than one repository, karma for a repository may be given out only on
> request) and one development mailing list. so i'd like to prohibit any
> sub-sub-projects like jakarta-turbine-JCS.

Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ). 

Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
fading,  then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.

A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject. 


Costin


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 22:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:



From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support
Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.*
i think that it depends on what's meant by sub-sub-projects :)

i'm happy for a single sub-project to create many different products 
(by this i mean stuff it releases). so, component repositories like 
jakarta-commons are fine by me. (some people describe these products as 
sub-sub-projects.)

but i think that each sub-project should only have one list of 
committers (though for reasons of security, if a sub-project has more 
than one repository, karma for a repository may be given out only on 
request) and one development mailing list. so i'd like to prohibit any 
sub-sub-projects like jakarta-turbine-JCS.

- robert

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


RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread Aaron Smuts

 
> There is also the problem of external dependencies ( if any ). At
least
> some
> of the people on commons preffer commons as more-or-less standalone
tools,
> that don't require a lot of 'framework'. I don't know JCS, but if it
can
> be used as a standalone library - it would be great to get it into
> commons.

It already is standalone as the JCS package naming indicates.





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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-07 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 5 Dec 2003, at 09:10, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:

Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm 
for the
Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than 
sandbox
route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.
+1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care).
the way that i'd like to see a potential drop working is by folding the 
jcs user and development lists into the commons lists first. this would 
allow the rest of the commons to provide oversight.

next, the JCS team should push towards some kind of release for the 
core engine (even if it's a 0.1 version). once this is ready, we'd 
update the commons website and officially add JCS to the commons. 
hopefully this would provide enough momentum to bootstrap a community 
and to create releases for all the various JCS bits and pieces. once 
the community exists, then JCS could apply for promotion out of the 
commons.

Else it would not be fair to
many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
(just to set the record straight on commons-configuration) sandbox 
components are not allowed to have releases. one major factor when 
promotion (to the commons proper) is being consider is that a component 
is ready for a release (even if it's a 0.1 one). i now think that every 
component in commons proper needs a proper release of some kind so that 
other projects have the chance to depend on a released version.

i'm not sure why eric hasn't started to push towards promotion for 
commons-configuration but it's possible that there's addition work that 
needs doing before commons-configuration is ready.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Costin Manolache
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:
> 
>> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for
>> the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than
>> sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full
>> sub-project.
> 
> +1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
> release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care). Else it would not be fair to
> many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
> there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).

There is also the problem of external dependencies ( if any ). At least some
of the people on commons preffer commons as more-or-less standalone tools,
that don't require a lot of 'framework'. I don't know JCS, but if it can
be used as a standalone library - it would be great to get it into commons.


Costin 



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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
You're kind of being excessively abrasive especially given that I'm just
trying to understand the problem as a responsible PMC member.  Given that
I'm trying to find out about the subject despite having no ties to Turbine
or JCS, I'd expect a little less of an obnoxious response.  This post
certainly doesn't make me want to volunteer to understand the matter or work
towards its resolution.

On 12/5/03 1:06 AM, "Henning Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the
>> Turbiners really care about it.  Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get
>> flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".
> 
> +--+
> |  Don't   |
> | feed the |
> |  Troll!  |
> +--+
>||
>||
>||
> /  \__
> 
> Come on Andrew, even you can do better than that!
> 
> Obviously you haven't read s single article in this thread, did you?.
> JCS is neither a "Turbine Service", nor is it used by Turbine at all.
> The fact that it has been developed under the "Turbine label", well it
> just happened. But JCS neither depends on Turbine nor the other way
> round. So IMHO it is time to move this (IMHO quite decent) project to a
> place where it gets much more attention.
> 
> Regards
> Henning

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
On 12/5/03 2:45 AM, "Martin Poeschl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
>> So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the
>> Turbiners really care about it.
>> 
> it is indirectly used by turbine ... that's why the discussion started ...
> it is used by torque, ojb, hibernate, 
> ok, they are all db related .. but i still do not think jcs is db related ..
>

I think Hibernate is switching to Jgroups anyhow.
 
>> Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get
>> flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".
>>  
>> 
> please go to the jcs site and RTFM
>

Been there.  That¹s why I asked the question.
  
> 
> As far as oversight, who on the PMC is on this sub-sub-subproject?
> 
> i am
>

So where do you want it to land?  Where do you feel it should go in the mean
time.

> we should only support sub-sub project if there is a strong relation to
> the sub-project ... e.g turbine-fulcrum (avalon components for turbine)
>

However, I regard that as more than likely just a component of Turbine.
More than likely the community is more or less the same.
 
>> -Andy
>> 
>> * before it is mentioned, on POI we call POIFS and HSSF subprojects but
>> they're really just components.  They're called subprojects by tradition,
>> granted it is ambiguous but I'll leave language pedantry to RMS. ;-)
>>  
>> 
> what is the definition of a sub-sub project??
>

Community/technical division.  The difference between POI and HTTPD only at
a lower level.  There aren't any shared committers between POI and HTTPD.
POI isn't required for HTTPD and HTTPD isn't required for POI and if POI
were housed as part of HTTPD or HTTPD part of POI it wouldn't make a great
deal of sense.  This is an exaggeration of course but you get the idea.

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

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-06 Thread Raymond Racine
With regard to who is using JCS (or should!).

We use it at http://www.officedepot.com  Without it I doubt we would be
ranked where we are on http://www.ecommercetimes.com/ectpi/

We added a new persisting backend based on an all Java version of gdbm.
I found that in a very old version of w3c's Jigsaw server. We also
enhanced the p2p caching based on the hashing algorithm used by Squid.
Yes we were going to contribute but at the time the JCS folks were
trying to extricate JCS into a standalone CVS code base.  Things were in
flux to say the least.

I have a hard time imagining a substantive website without a JSC
component.  Forward caching of data is just too critical for site speed
and scalability.

Quoting from Jakarta
"The goal of the Apache Jakarta Project is to provide commercial-quality
server solutions, based on the Java Platform, developed in an open and
cooperative fashion".

>From our perspective JCS is on par with Lucene or Log4j, and even Struts
as an invaluable server solution component and deserves equal treatment.

Regards,

Ray Racine


On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 08:08, Brian McCallister wrote:
> OJB supports using JCS for distributed caching, but I don't know how 
> many people actually use it (we don't). There is overlap between OJB 
> and Turbine contributors
> 
> Arrowhead ASP, a GPL ASP interpreter, ( http://www.tripi.com/arrowhead/ 
> ) also uses JCS as I know the guy who wrote it =) OTOH I don't think he 
> has ever submitted a patch or even feedback back to the Turbineers.
> 
> I would prefer to see it split off to its own [sub]project if it has 
> the community around it, but I cannot commit to contributing to it.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> On Dec 4, 2003, at 5:35 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
> > So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only 
> > the
> > Turbiners really care about it.  Thus I don't see why it doesn't just 
> > get
elided


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Brian McCallister
OJB supports using JCS for distributed caching, but I don't know how 
many people actually use it (we don't). There is overlap between OJB 
and Turbine contributors

Arrowhead ASP, a GPL ASP interpreter, ( http://www.tripi.com/arrowhead/ 
) also uses JCS as I know the guy who wrote it =) OTOH I don't think he 
has ever submitted a patch or even feedback back to the Turbineers.

I would prefer to see it split off to its own [sub]project if it has 
the community around it, but I cannot commit to contributing to it.

-Brian

On Dec 4, 2003, at 5:35 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only 
the
Turbiners really care about it.  Thus I don't see why it doesn't just 
get
flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".
However, if it DOES have a community or at the very least someone who 
loves
cares and feeds it, then commons sounds like a reasonable place to 
build a
community.

As far as oversight, who on the PMC is on this sub-sub-subproject?

From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support
Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.*
-Andy

* before it is mentioned, on POI we call POIFS and HSSF subprojects but
they're really just components.  They're called subprojects by 
tradition,
granted it is ambiguous but I'll leave language pedantry to RMS. ;-)

On 12/4/03 12:59 PM, "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

So your preference, as the development-community of JCS, is for a
top-level-jakarta project, ie) at the log4j level?
If so, we can take that up with the PMC and see what views there are. 
As
the development community, your (and James) views count a lot, though 
the
smallness of community is the worrying thing.

Hen

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote:

The core of JCS is ready for a release.

The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are
called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and
remote sever.  It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the 
others
are optional.

For each type of plugin there is an efficient implementation that 
people
are using.  These include: LRU memory manager, indexed disk cache, 
TCp
lateral distribution, and RMI remote server.

There are experimental versions of each type of plugin in an
experimental source directory: a b-tree disk cache, a database disk
cache, a javagroups lateral, a MRU memory manager, and others.
The core of JCS is then the hub and these 4 non-experimental plugins.
Currently there is only one small bug in the lateral cache recovery
process, that I will fix very soon.
There are additional features that are mostly extensions of the 
plugins.
I wanted to clean up the group handling features, but this is not
crucial.  I wanted to add run time defragmentation to the indexed 
disk
cache.  I also want to implement clustering on the remote server.
Basically, this will involve hooking up remote servers via the TCP
lateral cache.  All that has to be done is to work out a way to 
prevent
circular calls for there to be clustering.  The client can already 
fail
over.

I'm not sure what all the levels are called, but if we put JCS at the
level of log4j, I guess as a jakarta subproject, and then issue a
release, we can find out what else people might want and some more
people may be interested in contributing.
JCS does not need an overhaul or any significant amount of work on 
the
core features.  Most conceivable future development will involve 
tuning,
bug fixes, improving configuration, creating sample applications, and
extension development.

Aaron

-
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]
--
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are 
almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or 
its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree 
with
everything espoused in the above email.

-
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: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Daniel Rall
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:


Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the 
Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox 
route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.


+1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care). Else it would not be fair to
many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).
Yes, I like that stipulation.  A 1.0 release would do JCS right.

- Dan

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Martin Poeschl
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the
Turbiners really care about it.  

it is indirectly used by turbine ... that's why the discussion started ...
it is used by torque, ojb, hibernate, 
ok, they are all db related .. but i still do not think jcs is db related ..
Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get
flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".
 

please go to the jcs site and RTFM

However, if it DOES have a community or at the very least someone who loves
cares and feeds it, then commons sounds like a reasonable place to build a
community. 
 

As far as oversight, who on the PMC is on this sub-sub-subproject?

i am

From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support
Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.*
 

we should only support sub-sub project if there is a strong relation to 
the sub-project ... e.g turbine-fulcrum (avalon components for turbine)

-Andy

* before it is mentioned, on POI we call POIFS and HSSF subprojects but
they're really just components.  They're called subprojects by tradition,
granted it is ambiguous but I'll leave language pedantry to RMS. ;-)
 

what is the definition of a sub-sub project??

martin

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 20:43, Daniel Rall wrote:

> Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the 
> Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox 
> route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.

+1 but direct drop only if the move to the commons is accompanied by a
release (1.0 or 0.something, I don't care). Else it would not be fair to
many other sub-projects currently in the sandbox which have been kept
there because there is no release (commons-configuration e.g.).

Regards
Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire



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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:35, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the
> Turbiners really care about it.  Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get
> flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".

+--+
|  Don't   |
| feed the |
|  Troll!  |
+--+
 ||
 ||
 ||
/  \__

Come on Andrew, even you can do better than that!

Obviously you haven't read s single article in this thread, did you?.
JCS is neither a "Turbine Service", nor is it used by Turbine at all.
The fact that it has been developed under the "Turbine label", well it
just happened. But JCS neither depends on Turbine nor the other way
round. So IMHO it is time to move this (IMHO quite decent) project to a
place where it gets much more attention.

Regards
Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire



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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-05 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
So far it sounds to me like JCS is only used by Turbine and that only the
Turbiners really care about it.  Thus I don't see why it doesn't just get
flattened into Turbine and just consider it "one more turbine service".
However, if it DOES have a community or at the very least someone who loves
cares and feeds it, then commons sounds like a reasonable place to build a
community. 

As far as oversight, who on the PMC is on this sub-sub-subproject?

>From a Jakarta PMC perspective, I think that we should cease to support
Sub-sub-projects with the exception of commons.*

-Andy

* before it is mentioned, on POI we call POIFS and HSSF subprojects but
they're really just components.  They're called subprojects by tradition,
granted it is ambiguous but I'll leave language pedantry to RMS. ;-)

On 12/4/03 12:59 PM, "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> So your preference, as the development-community of JCS, is for a
> top-level-jakarta project, ie) at the log4j level?
> 
> If so, we can take that up with the PMC and see what views there are. As
> the development community, your (and James) views count a lot, though the
> smallness of community is the worrying thing.
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote:
> 
>> The core of JCS is ready for a release.
>> 
>> The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are
>> called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and
>> remote sever.  It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the others
>> are optional.
>> 
>> For each type of plugin there is an efficient implementation that people
>> are using.  These include: LRU memory manager, indexed disk cache, TCp
>> lateral distribution, and RMI remote server.
>> 
>> There are experimental versions of each type of plugin in an
>> experimental source directory: a b-tree disk cache, a database disk
>> cache, a javagroups lateral, a MRU memory manager, and others.
>> 
>> The core of JCS is then the hub and these 4 non-experimental plugins.
>> Currently there is only one small bug in the lateral cache recovery
>> process, that I will fix very soon.
>> 
>> There are additional features that are mostly extensions of the plugins.
>> I wanted to clean up the group handling features, but this is not
>> crucial.  I wanted to add run time defragmentation to the indexed disk
>> cache.  I also want to implement clustering on the remote server.
>> Basically, this will involve hooking up remote servers via the TCP
>> lateral cache.  All that has to be done is to work out a way to prevent
>> circular calls for there to be clustering.  The client can already fail
>> over.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what all the levels are called, but if we put JCS at the
>> level of log4j, I guess as a jakarta subproject, and then issue a
>> release, we can find out what else people might want and some more
>> people may be interested in contributing.
>> 
>> JCS does not need an overhaul or any significant amount of work on the
>> core features.  Most conceivable future development will involve tuning,
>> bug fixes, improving configuration, creating sample applications, and
>> extension development.
>> 
>> Aaron
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> 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]
> 

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
The lack of vibrant community is what points to Jakarta Commons as the more 
appropriate place, a place where a community could grow for JCS.  I'd rather see 
JCS as a full sub-project, but without a community to support the software, it 
would be misplaced as such.

Henri Yandell wrote:
So your preference, as the development-community of JCS, is for a
top-level-jakarta project, ie) at the log4j level?
If so, we can take that up with the PMC and see what views there are. As
the development community, your (and James) views count a lot, though the
smallness of community is the worrying thing.
Hen

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote:


The core of JCS is ready for a release.

The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are
called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and
remote sever.  It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the others
are optional.
For each type of plugin there is an efficient implementation that people
are using.  These include: LRU memory manager, indexed disk cache, TCp
lateral distribution, and RMI remote server.
There are experimental versions of each type of plugin in an
experimental source directory: a b-tree disk cache, a database disk
cache, a javagroups lateral, a MRU memory manager, and others.
The core of JCS is then the hub and these 4 non-experimental plugins.
Currently there is only one small bug in the lateral cache recovery
process, that I will fix very soon.
There are additional features that are mostly extensions of the plugins.
I wanted to clean up the group handling features, but this is not
crucial.  I wanted to add run time defragmentation to the indexed disk
cache.  I also want to implement clustering on the remote server.
Basically, this will involve hooking up remote servers via the TCP
lateral cache.  All that has to be done is to work out a way to prevent
circular calls for there to be clustering.  The client can already fail
over.
I'm not sure what all the levels are called, but if we put JCS at the
level of log4j, I guess as a jakarta subproject, and then issue a
release, we can find out what else people might want and some more
people may be interested in contributing.
JCS does not need an overhaul or any significant amount of work on the
core features.  Most conceivable future development will involve tuning,
bug fixes, improving configuration, creating sample applications, and
extension development.


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


RE: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henri Yandell

So your preference, as the development-community of JCS, is for a
top-level-jakarta project, ie) at the log4j level?

If so, we can take that up with the PMC and see what views there are. As
the development community, your (and James) views count a lot, though the
smallness of community is the worrying thing.

Hen

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Aaron Smuts wrote:

> The core of JCS is ready for a release.
>
> The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are
> called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and
> remote sever.  It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the others
> are optional.
>
> For each type of plugin there is an efficient implementation that people
> are using.  These include: LRU memory manager, indexed disk cache, TCp
> lateral distribution, and RMI remote server.
>
> There are experimental versions of each type of plugin in an
> experimental source directory: a b-tree disk cache, a database disk
> cache, a javagroups lateral, a MRU memory manager, and others.
>
> The core of JCS is then the hub and these 4 non-experimental plugins.
> Currently there is only one small bug in the lateral cache recovery
> process, that I will fix very soon.
>
> There are additional features that are mostly extensions of the plugins.
> I wanted to clean up the group handling features, but this is not
> crucial.  I wanted to add run time defragmentation to the indexed disk
> cache.  I also want to implement clustering on the remote server.
> Basically, this will involve hooking up remote servers via the TCP
> lateral cache.  All that has to be done is to work out a way to prevent
> circular calls for there to be clustering.  The client can already fail
> over.
>
> I'm not sure what all the levels are called, but if we put JCS at the
> level of log4j, I guess as a jakarta subproject, and then issue a
> release, we can find out what else people might want and some more
> people may be interested in contributing.
>
> JCS does not need an overhaul or any significant amount of work on the
> core features.  Most conceivable future development will involve tuning,
> bug fixes, improving configuration, creating sample applications, and
> extension development.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> -
> 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: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Aaron Smuts
The core of JCS is ready for a release.  

The project is basically a hub for 4 types of plugins, or what are
called auxiliaries in JCS: memory, disk, lateral distribution, and
remote sever.  It requires that you use a memory plugin, but the others
are optional.  

For each type of plugin there is an efficient implementation that people
are using.  These include: LRU memory manager, indexed disk cache, TCp
lateral distribution, and RMI remote server.  

There are experimental versions of each type of plugin in an
experimental source directory: a b-tree disk cache, a database disk
cache, a javagroups lateral, a MRU memory manager, and others.

The core of JCS is then the hub and these 4 non-experimental plugins.
Currently there is only one small bug in the lateral cache recovery
process, that I will fix very soon. 

There are additional features that are mostly extensions of the plugins.
I wanted to clean up the group handling features, but this is not
crucial.  I wanted to add run time defragmentation to the indexed disk
cache.  I also want to implement clustering on the remote server.
Basically, this will involve hooking up remote servers via the TCP
lateral cache.  All that has to be done is to work out a way to prevent
circular calls for there to be clustering.  The client can already fail
over. 

I'm not sure what all the levels are called, but if we put JCS at the
level of log4j, I guess as a jakarta subproject, and then issue a
release, we can find out what else people might want and some more
people may be interested in contributing.

JCS does not need an overhaul or any significant amount of work on the
core features.  Most conceivable future development will involve tuning,
bug fixes, improving configuration, creating sample applications, and
extension development.

Aaron


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Martin Poeschl
Daniel Rall wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:


(i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the
JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined
above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best
option yet?


My only worry with a Commons other than JC is that there's a lot less
chance of community. AC and DC need communities to move to them, whereas
JCS needs community and JC is the best place to get such a thing.


Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm 
for the Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather 
than sandbox route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full 
sub-project.

- Dan


+1

martin



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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 08:17, Daniel Rall wrote:

Martin Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
[I like "Turbineers". :-) ]
>
I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon 
with
Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses 
it in
Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to the same
conclusion as robert:

- JCS is cute and should have a larger exposure
- JCS isn't related at all to Turbine. At most it is related to 
Torque
- JCS could be moved to db.apache.org but it is not really database
 specific
- There is (almost) no resistance to move this project out of 
Turbine.

So my vote is
It might be a bit early for a vote, everyone not having the same 
amount of information and all.  But seeing as how you prefixed the 
email POLL, I'm not complaining.  ;)
i suppose i better explain what i mean by a POLL :)

it's a vote but not a VOTE ;)

any final binding VOTE will have to happen on the pmc list (for legal 
reasons) and needs rules and so on. but a vote is very useful way of 
concentrating a discussion and building a consensus. since a POLL is 
informal and unofficial, we don't need to waste time making up rules :) 
so, i thought it's time to revive the [POLL].

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:


(i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the
JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined
above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best
option yet?


My only worry with a Commons other than JC is that there's a lot less
chance of community. AC and DC need communities to move to them, whereas
JCS needs community and JC is the best place to get such a thing.
Given Robert's description of his experience with the Incubator, I'm for the 
Jakarta Commons to gather some community (direct drop rather than sandbox 
route), with the goal of an eventual promotion to a full sub-project.

- Dan



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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 4 Dec 2003, at 19:28, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:

(i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the
JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines 
outlined
above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best
option yet?
My only worry with a Commons other than JC is that there's a lot less
chance of community. AC and DC need communities to move to them, 
whereas
JCS needs community and JC is the best place to get such a thing.
i would say that the right place for JCS at db would be as a direct 
sub-project (rather than in db commons).

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henri Yandell


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:

> (i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the
> JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined
> above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best
> option yet?

My only worry with a Commons other than JC is that there's a lot less
chance of community. AC and DC need communities to move to them, whereas
JCS needs community and JC is the best place to get such a thing.


Hen


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread robert burrell donkin
IMHO the incubator is having some political difficulties at the moment 
and (from my experience of projects being incubated) it doesn't really 
help with gathering more developers.

having read the thread so far, here's my feelings:

1. i feel strongly that JCS should not continue as a turbine 
sub-project.

2. i think that JCS could reasonably aspire to be a sub-project of 
either db or jakarta.

3. i think that the route for JCS to become a jakarta sub-project 
should be through the commons (in order to develop the strength 
required for a separate sub-project).

(i'm a little inclined towards db but) i'd support a proposal from the 
JCS team for a future in either db or jakarta (along the lines outlined 
above). guys - have you come to any opinions about what's the best 
option yet?

- robert

On 4 Dec 2003, at 17:45, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:17, Daniel Rall wrote:

Jakarta Commons or the Incubator have been my preference for some 
time now.  The
Incubator seems like a more appropriate place, as JCS could use some 
life
I was thinking about the incubator, too. But as projects failing
to leave the incubator might drop off-ASF completely, we would
put JCS (which is already ASF code) to the risk of being dropped
out of ASF. That's why I suggested jakarta-commons.
(First rule of software acquisition: Once you have the code, never
give it back. ;-) )
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/
Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty 
silicon!"
  -- AOL CD when played backwards  (User Friendly - 200-10-15)



-
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: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 09:17, Daniel Rall wrote:

> Jakarta Commons or the Incubator have been my preference for some time now.  The 
> Incubator seems like a more appropriate place, as JCS could use some life 

I was thinking about the incubator, too. But as projects failing
to leave the incubator might drop off-ASF completely, we would 
put JCS (which is already ASF code) to the risk of being dropped
out of ASF. That's why I suggested jakarta-commons.

(First rule of software acquisition: Once you have the code, never
give it back. ;-) )

Regards
Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

"Dominate!! Dominate!! Eat your young and aggregate! I have grotty silicon!" 
  -- AOL CD when played backwards  (User Friendly - 200-10-15)



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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-04 Thread Daniel Rall
Martin Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

[I like "Turbineers". :-) ]
>
I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with
Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in
Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to the same
conclusion as robert:
- JCS is cute and should have a larger exposure
- JCS isn't related at all to Turbine. At most it is related to Torque
- JCS could be moved to db.apache.org but it is not really database
 specific
- There is (almost) no resistance to move this project out of Turbine.
So my vote is
It might be a bit early for a vote, everyone not having the same amount of 
information and all.  But seeing as how you prefixed the email POLL, I'm not 
complaining.  ;)

-->8

(comments here, please)

-->8
[ ] leave it within turbine
[ ] move it to apache commons
[X] move it to jakarta commons
[ ] move it to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...

Jakarta Commons or the Incubator have been my preference for some time now.  The 
Incubator seems like a more appropriate place, as JCS could use some life 
breathed into it, but it is in use so shouldn't somehow end up in the "retired" 
bin without giving existing projects warning and opportunity to migrate away. 
Of course, JCS might actually be close to "done", too (though it does still 
exhibit its share of bugs).

If JCS really catches on, we can still move it back to Jakarta as
"Jakarta JCS".
Yes.

This all makes sense to me, and coming from a Turbineer, it's something I
would support.
It might even provide a path to resolution for what we do with Commons
Cache, which is currently in a coma (at best)...
Neither Torque and OJB are strictly database projects, and they yet are the 
poster children of db.apache.org.  Is db.apache.org more of a "persistance, 
caching, and storage meta data" TLP than a straight database project?  If so, 
that's another place that either JCS or Commons Cache could find a more 
appropriate home.

- Dan

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-02 Thread Martin Poeschl

[ ] leave it within turbine
[ ] move it to apache commons
[ ] move it to jakarta commons
[ ] move it to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...


[1] move it to jakarta
[2] move it to db
from my point of view jcs should be a jakarta (or db) subproject.

martin

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Tim O'Brien

[ ] leave it within turbine
[3] move it to apache commons
[2] move it to jakarta commons
[ ] move it to incubator
[1] something else (please specify)...


I think the ideal place for JCS is the DB Top Level Project.  Second 
choice, Jakarta Commons, and my final choice is Apache Commons.

A lot of people are being introduced to JCS through Hibernate, it could 
use a release, as it does seem to be a great piece of software.  I 
believe that the DB TLP needs more attention, and moving JCS (which IMO 
should have a much higher profile) to DB would help send some energy 
towards that project.

J-C is my second choice only because, again, I think that JCS (like 
HiveMind and Jelly) is something that transcends the charter of Jakarta 
Commons.  I would not object to JCS in Jakarta Commons, but I'd rather 
see us not throw another project into the Jakarta Commons.

My last recommendation is the Apache Commons.  I hate to feed trolls, 
but the last round of "discussions" we had about Apache Commons 
descended into an unproductive rant festival.

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 1 Dec 2003, at 12:51, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

[I like "Turbineers". :-) ]
or turbinauts as in 'jason and the turbinauts' ;)

If JCS really catches on, we can still move it back to Jakarta as
"Jakarta JCS".
if JCS really catches on, they might demand a top level ASF project. 
who knows!

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 1 Dec 2003, at 05:11, Scott Eade wrote:



Without knowing too much, should perhaps "JCS to db top level" and 
"JCS to db commons" also be considered options?
definitely :)

Of the available options below I have selected jakarta commons more by 
excluding the other options than because of some perceived positive 
fit in jakarta commons (though commons is a good place to be no 
doubt).
no need to pick one of the options listed. it's not a VOTE (the reason 
i listed options was to give a focus). if there are any better options 
out there, let's consider them.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Martin Cooper
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

> [I like "Turbineers". :-) ]
>
> I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with
> Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in
> Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to the same
> conclusion as robert:
>
> - JCS is cute and should have a larger exposure
> - JCS isn't related at all to Turbine. At most it is related to Torque
> - JCS could be moved to db.apache.org but it is not really database
>   specific
> - There is (almost) no resistance to move this project out of Turbine.
>
> So my vote is
>
> > -->8
> >
> > (comments here, please)
> >
> > -->8
> > [ ] leave it within turbine
> > [ ] move it to apache commons
> > [X] move it to jakarta commons
> > [ ] move it to incubator
> > [ ] something else (please specify)...
> > 
>
> If JCS really catches on, we can still move it back to Jakarta as
> "Jakarta JCS".

This all makes sense to me, and coming from a Turbineer, it's something I
would support.

It might even provide a path to resolution for what we do with Commons
Cache, which is currently in a coma (at best)...

--
Martin Cooper


>
>   Regards
>   Henning
>
>

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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
[I like "Turbineers". :-) ]

I am one of them, and I did some discussion about JCS @ ApacheCon with
Martin Poeschl (who seems to do the odd fix to JCS because he uses it in
Torque), another Turbineer. We basically were came to the same
conclusion as robert:

- JCS is cute and should have a larger exposure
- JCS isn't related at all to Turbine. At most it is related to Torque
- JCS could be moved to db.apache.org but it is not really database 
  specific
- There is (almost) no resistance to move this project out of Turbine.

So my vote is

> -->8
> 
> (comments here, please)
> 
> -->8
> [ ] leave it within turbine
> [ ] move it to apache commons
> [X] move it to jakarta commons
> [ ] move it to incubator
> [ ] something else (please specify)...
> 

If JCS really catches on, we can still move it back to Jakarta as
"Jakarta JCS".

Regards
Henning

-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

Java, perl, Solaris, Linux, xSP Consulting, Web Services 
freelance consultant -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire

"Außerdem können in Deutschland alle Englisch. [...] so entfällt die
Notwendigkeit [...] Deutsch zu lernen." 
-- Johan Micoud auf die Frage warum er kein Deutsch spricht.
   (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,273205,00.html)


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-12-01 Thread Bill Barker

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS


> On 11/30/03 6:57 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >
> >> What do the turbine people want?
> >
> > If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a
> > good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within
> > turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level project,
> > taking JCS with it.
> >
>
> If there are not Turbine people then Turbine should be archived and noted
as
> deprecated.
>

Please don't feed the trolls :-)

> -andy
>
>
> >> On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> sorry, missed one and probably
> >>>
> >>> [ ] leave JCS within turbine
> >>> [ ] JCS to apache commons
> >>> [ ] JCS to jakarta commons
> >>> [ ] JCS to jakarta top level
> >>> [ ] JCS to incubator
> >>> [ ] something else (please specify)...
> >>>
> >>> ps
> >>>
> >>> before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that
> >>> it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right
> >>> place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action
> >>> to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.
> >>>
> >>> - robert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> 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]
> >
>
> -- 
> Andrew C. Oliver
> http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
> Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
> For Java and Excel, Got POI?
>
> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
> definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
> general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
> everything espoused in the above email.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) listed above as the 
intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and 
CONFIDENTIAL.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not read, copy, or 
distribute this message or any attachment. If you received this communication in 
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and then delete all copies of this 
message and any attachments.

In addition you should be aware that ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail sent through the 
Internet is not secure. Do not send confidential or sensitive information, such as 
social security numbers, account numbers, personal identification numbers and 
passwords, to us via ordinary (unencrypted) e-mail.

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

Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
JCS should definitely be pulled out to Jakarta Commons to make it more known. I actually came across 
JCS when I was evaluating Hibernate! I think its a pretty decent software and deserves a higher 
level of presence. Just my 2 cents.

[ ] leave it within turbine
[ ] move it to apache commons
[X] move it to jakarta commons
[ ] move it to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...

-Harish



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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Scott Eade
robert burrell donkin wrote:

(we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed 
this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting 
this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.)

some information about Turbine-JCS:

* JCS has no release
* other apache products depend on JCS
* JCS is not really directly related to turbine
concerns:

* JCS is a sub-sub-project with it's own mailing list (this kind of 
structure has proved difficult to properly supervise)
* JCS's health
* want to find the 'right' place for JCS

-->8
Andy: There most definitely are Turbine people (count me in) - but as 
Robert suggests above, with it's own mailing list many of us are unaware 
of JCS.

The connection between Turbine and JCS is Torque, which was spun out 
into db.apache.org some time ago.  JCS could well receive more attention 
if it was located somewhere more appropriate - more attention leads to 
more users and developers.

Without knowing too much, should perhaps "JCS to db top level" and "JCS 
to db commons" also be considered options?

Of the available options below I have selected jakarta commons more by 
excluding the other options than because of some perceived positive fit 
in jakarta commons (though commons is a good place to be no doubt).

-->8

[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[x] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...


Scott

--
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au




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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
On 11/30/03 6:57 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
>> What do the turbine people want?
> 
> If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a
> good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within
> turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level project,
> taking JCS with it.
> 

If there are not Turbine people then Turbine should be archived and noted as
deprecated.  

-andy


>> On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>> 
>>> sorry, missed one and probably
>>> 
>>> [ ] leave JCS within turbine
>>> [ ] JCS to apache commons
>>> [ ] JCS to jakarta commons
>>> [ ] JCS to jakarta top level
>>> [ ] JCS to incubator
>>> [ ] something else (please specify)...
>>> 
>>> ps
>>> 
>>> before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that
>>> it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right
>>> place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action
>>> to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.
>>> 
>>> - robert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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]
> 

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr.
On Nov 30, 2003, at 9:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

What do the turbine people want?
If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a 
good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS 
within turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level 
project, taking JCS with it.
Why?  There are "Gump people", "Tomcat people", "struts people", 
"taglib people", etc.  There's nothing wrong with recognizing that the 
various citizens of Jakarta work on different things.

And if Turbine wants to go to TLP, +1 from me.

geir


On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:

sorry, missed one and probably

[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...
ps

before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that 
it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right 
place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever 
action to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.

- robert

-
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]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Sam Ruby
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:

What do the turbine people want?
If we presume the existance of 'turbine people', then that would be a 
good indication that the right thing to do would be to leave JCS within 
turbine, and encourage turbine to be promoted to a top level project, 
taking JCS with it.

On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:

sorry, missed one and probably

[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...
ps

before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that 
it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right 
place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action 
to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.

- robert

-
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: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
What do the turbine people want?

On Nov 30, 2003, at 6:08 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:

sorry, missed one and probably

[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...
ps

before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that 
it'd be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right 
place for JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action 
to be taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.

- robert

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

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Conor MacNeill
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:41 am, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> (we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed
> this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting
> this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.)
>

Have we asked the JCS developers what they want to do? We may be better off 
telling them that they should change their organization and let them decide 
what is the most appropriate move to make. 

Conor


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



Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Glen Stampoultzis
At 10:08 AM 1/12/2003, you wrote:
[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[X] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...


Glen Stampoultzis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 30 Nov 2003, at 20:41, robert burrell donkin wrote:

sorry, missed one and probably

[ ] leave JCS within turbine
[ ] JCS to apache commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta commons
[ ] JCS to jakarta top level
[ ] JCS to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...
ps

before i get flamed (once again), i'd better add that i think that it'd 
be useful to try to get some consensus about where the right place for 
JCS is and that's why i started this thread. whatever action to be 
taken (if any) will have to be decided on the pmc list.

- robert

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


Re: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread Dirk Verbeeck
People looking for java components at apache look first at jakarta commons.
I already referred some people asking for a cache component on the 
commons-user mailing list.
Looking at the number of messages (on the turbine-jcs-* lists) moving to the 
incubator or somewhere else to become a TLP is too soon IMHO.
But JCS has the right size for jakarta commons.

> --
> [ ] leave it within turbine
> [ ] move it to apache commons
> [X] move it to jakarta commons
> [ ] move it to incubator
> [ ] something else (please specify)...
> --
-- Dirk



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


[POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS

2003-11-30 Thread robert burrell donkin
(we've done some talking on the pmc list and turbineers have discussed 
this in the past but since it's not really confidential i'm starting 
this thread to give everyone a chance to participate.)

some information about Turbine-JCS:

* JCS has no release
* other apache products depend on JCS
* JCS is not really directly related to turbine
concerns:

* JCS is a sub-sub-project with it's own mailing list (this kind of 
structure has proved difficult to properly supervise)
* JCS's health
* want to find the 'right' place for JCS

-->8

(comments here, please)

-->8
[ ] leave it within turbine
[ ] move it to apache commons
[ ] move it to jakarta commons
[ ] move it to incubator
[ ] something else (please specify)...

- robert

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