Re: Geronimo's vision
On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Bruno Melloni wrote: Hello Matt, Thanks for your answer. As to your question, it was bug 3095. The bug may be in the Geronimo plugin code or it may be in the WAS CE derivation from such code. Regardless of where it is, it hampers the ability to use Geronimo in Eclipse when another server derived from Geronimo (WAS CE in this case) is installed first. The response seems to say that this is a known limitation of WAS CE, not Geronimo, and sounded as coming from a WAS CE team member. It also indicates that we will not be fixing it in the 1.1 or 2.0 releases (of WAS CE I presume) and was closed as invalid. I see what you mean. I think given your comments Donald probably could have stated it better but I'll let him address that himself. What I think he was indicating was that the bug should not have been opened against Geronimo as it was an issue in IBM's distribution of CE. His indicating what CE was planning to do in our JIRA system was probably not the right place to address that. Although, I'm sure the person that opened it appreciated the answer, it caused confusion for other folks. It's a good reminder that we need to be screening our JIRA's a bit more closely, thanks for the heads up. No chance seemed to be given to the Geronimo team to consider the side effects or to take preventive measures (i.e.: Adding a clause to the Geronimo license requiring that any derived work must not interfere with the original). Perhaps Sachin can comment more on the defect as he did the Eclipse tooling in Geronimo. bruno -Original Message- From: Matt Hogstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:13 PM To: user@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Geronimo's vision Hi Bruno, -- snip -- I was concerned about your comment about how a bug report was handled comment you mentioned above. How was it handled that gave you a bad feeling?
Re: Geronimo's vision
Bruno Melloni wrote: Hello Matt, Thanks for your answer. As to your question, it was bug 3095. The bug may be in the Geronimo plugin code or it may be in the WAS CE derivation from such code. Regardless of where it is, it hampers the ability to use Geronimo in Eclipse when another server derived from Geronimo (WAS CE in this case) is installed first. [snip] No chance seemed to be given to the Geronimo team to consider the side effects or to take preventive measures The Geronimo community had every chance (and still has) to discuss the issue, one member of a community marking an issue as invalid does not mean discussion has to stop. Since everyone is a peer in an ASF community it's fine to question any decision and/or openly discuss it, for example the bug could have been re-opened. Hopefully each person brings valid technical reasons and the standard ASF consensus gathering can proceed to lead to a solution that works for all. Apache is a do-ocracy -- power of those who do. (http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html). (i.e.: Adding a clause to the Geronimo license requiring that any derived work must not interfere with the original). This would not be acceptable to the ASF, code is released under the ALv2, not with any additional restrictions. See the current open letter to Sun, for example. http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html Maybe though there's a technical solution to this issue. Dan.
Re: Geronimo's vision
Sorry for the shortness of answers, but we try to keep known IBM WASCE specific issues out of the Geronimo community, since we (WASCE) are the ones who reuse Apache Geronimo source code as allowed under the ASL v2 license. We have had several discussions before between WASCE and Geronimo members about the Eclipse Plug-in and how to best rebrand it for our offering. Currently, its just that, a rebranding to change the displayed names and graphics in Eclipse, disable a few features (like the ability to download a server instance) and add a few features (like the ability in our current 1.1.1 plugin to mark references to Geronimo provided jars besides the J2EE Spec jars as warnings.) It was our (WASCE) decision, to not change all of the package, plugin and feature names from the Geronimo provided org.apache.geronimo.devtools.* in the plugin code, which would have been the only way to solve this problem within the provided Eclipse programming model today. Our overriding goal, is to not create a fork of the Geronimo code (including the Eclipse Plugin), which would be so completely different, that none of the Geronimo Apps, Samples, Tools or Plugins would not work with WASCE. As we work on delivering a 2.0 release, we always welcome suggestions of how to improve our WASCE offering and eliminate any detrimental impacts we have on Geronimo users, but I still feel that those initial discussions are better had on our IBM devWorks forum or through our IBM Support channels, instead of the Geronimo mailing lists. Once we have defined features or enhancements that require changes in Geronimo and which would benefit users of Geronimo, then we can open JIRAs or start a discussion thread on the Geronimo mailing lists As for this case, if you have knowledge or suggestions on how to create rebrandable Eclipse plugin that can allow multiples to coexist within a single Eclipse workspace, then please do start a IBM devWorks or [EMAIL PROTECTED] thread with the details so we can further explore this for a future release. -Donald Bruno Melloni wrote: Hello Matt, Thanks for your answer. As to your question, it was bug 3095. The bug may be in the Geronimo plugin code or it may be in the WAS CE derivation from such code. Regardless of where it is, it hampers the ability to use Geronimo in Eclipse when another server derived from Geronimo (WAS CE in this case) is installed first. The response seems to say that this is a known limitation of WAS CE, not Geronimo, and sounded as coming from a WAS CE team member. It also indicates that we will not be fixing it in the 1.1 or 2.0 releases (of WAS CE I presume) and was closed as invalid. No chance seemed to be given to the Geronimo team to consider the side effects or to take preventive measures (i.e.: Adding a clause to the Geronimo license requiring that any derived work must not interfere with the original). bruno -Original Message- From: Matt Hogstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:13 PM To: user@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Geronimo's vision Hi Bruno, -- snip -- I was concerned about your comment about how a bug report was handled comment you mentioned above. How was it handled that gave you a bad feeling? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Geronimo's vision
The only way to allow this I think and to have the WASCE plugin coexist with the Geronimo plugin is to create additional core and UI plugins with no source code but simply define each of the extension points that are defined in the Geronimo plugins, which different ids, serverids, runtimeids, but point to the same class -sachin On Apr 24, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Donald Woods wrote: As for this case, if you have knowledge or suggestions on how to create rebrandable Eclipse plugin that can allow multiples to coexist within a single Eclipse workspace, then please do start a IBM devWorks or [EMAIL PROTECTED] thread with the details so we can further explore this for a future release.
Re: Geronimo's vision
Hello Bruno, I'm not sure how anyone else would react, but I don't see Geronimo as simply an incubator for WASCE. I tried using WASCE about a year ago and after learning that it had Geronimo as a base - I switched to Geronimo. And, I haven't looked back (no offense IBM). In fact, CE's last release (last time I checked anyway) was based on Geronimo 1.1 and was about a year ago. In that time, Geronimo has made tremendous strides toward full JEE5 support (in the 2.0 branch) and towards a more than complete J2EE version (in the 1.2 branch). IBM may currently be the employer of a large number of commiters, but I think that it is just a matter of time before non-IBMers begin to catch up (and hopefully pass) in the committer base for the project. I for one have never considered Geronimo as simply being the incubator for WASCE . Geronimo was around before WASCE ever did. The fact that IBM has used it as the base simply testifies to how complete a product Geronimo is and the level of quality it possesses. Jay Bruno Melloni wrote: With thanks to IBM for their heavy contributions to Geronimo - about 50% of Geronimo's contributors - and no criticism intended, I am wondering about Apache's long term intent for the product. Is it intended to eventually be taken over by the Apache community at large, with no single firm dominating the decision-making? In such case I can easily see it filling the vacuum left when jBoss was bought out by RedHat. Or is it intended to be/remain as an incubator for Websphere Community Edition? Bruno
RE: Geronimo's vision
Thank you, that is the answer that I was wishing for, but not counting on. When I first discovered Geronimo as an Apache project a couple of weeks ago, I did not even consider the possibility of it being single product focused. It was obvious to me that this was the next server I'd use for my personal work. Then I saw a couple of minor troubling signs, like the large percentage and how a bug report was handled, and I started to worry about whether I'd done enough research. Thanks for the info. I hope other committers will also comment on the vision. bruno -Original Message- From: Jay D. McHugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:09 PM To: user@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Geronimo's vision Hello Bruno, I'm not sure how anyone else would react, but I don't see Geronimo as simply an incubator for WASCE. I tried using WASCE about a year ago and after learning that it had Geronimo as a base - I switched to Geronimo. And, I haven't looked back (no offense IBM). In fact, CE's last release (last time I checked anyway) was based on Geronimo 1.1 and was about a year ago. In that time, Geronimo has made tremendous strides toward full JEE5 support (in the 2.0 branch) and towards a more than complete J2EE version (in the 1.2 branch). IBM may currently be the employer of a large number of commiters, but I think that it is just a matter of time before non-IBMers begin to catch up (and hopefully pass) in the committer base for the project. I for one have never considered Geronimo as simply being the incubator for WASCE . Geronimo was around before WASCE ever did. The fact that IBM has used it as the base simply testifies to how complete a product Geronimo is and the level of quality it possesses. Jay Bruno Melloni wrote: With thanks to IBM for their heavy contributions to Geronimo - about 50% of Geronimo's contributors - and no criticism intended, I am wondering about Apache's long term intent for the product. Is it intended to eventually be taken over by the Apache community at large, with no single firm dominating the decision-making? In such case I can easily see it filling the vacuum left when jBoss was bought out by RedHat. Or is it intended to be/remain as an incubator for Websphere Community Edition? Bruno
Re: Geronimo's vision
Hi Bruno, By way of background the Apache Geronimo project existed long before IBM took an interest in it (about two years I think). Apache Geronimo is a community of a large number of folks (and yes, a good number of them work for IBM) which I think can be confusing. I can only speak for me (and I do work for IBM) but I tend to draw a distinct line between my IBM job and contributing to Apache Geronimo. I think it would be most excellent when a swelling of contributors comes and out numbers the current committer base. I'm excited to see people outside of IBM picking Geronimo up and using it for their projects as well as contributing back to the project as Jay has been doing. On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:24 PM, Bruno Melloni wrote: When I first discovered Geronimo as an Apache project a couple of weeks ago, I did not even consider the possibility of it being single product focused. It was obvious to me that this was the next server I'd use for my personal work. Then I saw a couple of minor troubling signs, like the large percentage and how a bug report was handled, and I started to worry about whether I'd done enough research. I was concerned about your comment about how a bug report was handled comment you mentioned above. How was it handled that gave you a bad feeling?
