Quantcast

Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
  1. the lack of interest in JEE
  2. inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
  3. the size and age of the legacy code base 
  4. project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.

Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.

The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.

I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.

There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.  

If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow. 


Regards,
Alan Cabrera
V.P. Apache Geronimo

P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Mark Struberg
I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive.

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
> • the lack of interest in JEE
> • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
> • the size and age of the legacy code base
> • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
> When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>
> Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>
> The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>
> I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>
> There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.  
>
> If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan Cabrera
> V.P. Apache Geronimo
>
> P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Romain Manni-Bucau
I share that vision (the one of Mark).

The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).

EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.

Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.


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

2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive.

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
>       • the lack of interest in JEE
>       • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>       • the size and age of the legacy code base
>       • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
> When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>
> Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>
> The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>
> I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>
> There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.
>
> If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan Cabrera
> V.P. Apache Geronimo
>
> P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

kevan
Administrator
Thanks Alan! Many thanks for all you've done!

I think we all agree that it is time to retire the Geronimo Server portions of the project.

My apologies to Romain, Mark, David, and others, but:

I think the entire project should be retired. I confess that I am not closely following the dev list (I scan it from time to time for a general sense of what's happening). 

I don't see sufficient community behind the remaining sub-projects. If the Geronimo project didn't exist, I seriously doubt that there would be calls to form a new Geronimo EE Commons project. In my view, Geronimo is a convenient code repository for some people interested in releasing code. Thus, I think the entire project should be moved to the Attic. If there are parts of the project that should live on, then let them be incorporated into projects that will provide them the community they deserve.

And now the olive branch...

If there is sufficient community, then that community should be able to develop a new project description (https://projects.apache.org/project.html?geronimo) and report to the board. Note that this change of the project's charter, may require approval by the Board. And I expect there may be some reluctance to create a new Commons-style project at the ASF. If we're (you're) able to accomplish this, then you have my full support.

kevan

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
I share that vision (the one of Mark).

The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).

EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.

Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.


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

2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive.

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
>       • the lack of interest in JEE
>       • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>       • the size and age of the legacy code base
>       • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
> When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>
> Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>
> The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>
> I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>
> There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.
>
> If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan Cabrera
> V.P. Apache Geronimo
>
> P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF. 

Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, community.

Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.

When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a new active community?  No.

A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the wider community goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.

Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry.  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity is concrete proof of that.

With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in the Incubator.


Regards,
Alan


On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

I share that vision (the one of Mark).

The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).

EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.

Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.


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

2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive.

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
>       • the lack of interest in JEE
>       • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>       • the size and age of the legacy code base
>       • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
> When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>
> Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>
> The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>
> I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>
> There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.
>
> If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan Cabrera
> V.P. Apache Geronimo
>
> P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Mark Struberg
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.


Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.03.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF.
>
> Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, community.
>
> Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.
>
> When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a new active community?  No.
>
> A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the wider community goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.
>
> Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry.  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity is concrete proof of that.
>
> With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in the Incubator.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
>>
>> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).
>>
>> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.
>>
>> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>
>> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
>> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
>> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
>>
>> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
>> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.
>>
>> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
>>
>> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
>> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.
>>
>>
>> Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.
>>
>> * geronimo-jta
>> * javamail
>> * xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
>> * the specs
>> and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.
>>
>> I'd definitly keep them alive.
>>
>> I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
>> But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.
>>
>> Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.
>>
>> txs for all the hard work!
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
>> >       • the lack of interest in JEE
>> >       • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>> >       • the size and age of the legacy code base
>> >       • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
>> > When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>> >
>> > Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>> >
>> > The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>> >
>> > I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>> >
>> > There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.
>> >
>> > If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Alan Cabrera
>> > V.P. Apache Geronimo
>> >
>> > P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Dave Horsey
unsubscribe

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.


Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 08.03.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>
> I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF.
>
> Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, community.
>
> Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.
>
> When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a new active community?  No.
>
> A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the wider community goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.
>
> Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry.  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity is concrete proof of that.
>
> With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in the Incubator.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I share that vision (the one of Mark).
>>
>> The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).
>>
>> EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.
>>
>> Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>
>> 2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
>> I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
>> MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).
>>
>> You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
>> So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.
>>
>> I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.
>>
>> The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
>> Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.
>>
>>
>> Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.
>>
>> * geronimo-jta
>> * javamail
>> * xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
>> * the specs
>> and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.
>>
>> I'd definitly keep them alive.
>>
>> I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
>> But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.
>>
>> Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.
>>
>> txs for all the hard work!
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>> > Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
>> >       • the lack of interest in JEE
>> >       • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
>> >       • the size and age of the legacy code base
>> >       • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
>> > When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.
>> >
>> > Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.
>> >
>> > The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.
>> >
>> > I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.
>> >
>> > There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.
>> >
>> > If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Alan Cabrera
>> > V.P. Apache Geronimo
>> >
>> > P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>




--
Cheers,

Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Jason Dillon-4
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going. 

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now. 

What about starting look into 
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project? 

So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason


.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening? 

I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Matt Hogstrom
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going. 

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now. 

What about starting look into 
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project? 

So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason


.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening? 

I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason



signature.asc (242 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Romain Manni-Bucau
A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).




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

2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going. 

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now. 

What about starting look into 
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project? 

So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason


.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening? 

I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

David Jencks-3
I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….

Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?

Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.

xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)

yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.

Any other bits being used?

If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.

If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).




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

2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine. 
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going. 

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now. 

What about starting look into 
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project? 

So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason


.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening? 

I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Mark Struberg
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
        • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
        • Meecrowave (txmgr)
        • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
        • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
        • TomEE as delivery
        • Lot of standalone
        • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • OpenJPA
        • Johnzon
        • BatchEE
        • Karaf
        • Aries
        • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • Aries
        • Karaf
        • OpenJPA
        • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:
>
> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….
>
> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
>
> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.
>
> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)
>
> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.
>
> Any other bits being used?
>
> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.
>
> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>
>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>>
>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom
>> [hidden email]
>> +1-919-656-0564
>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
>>
>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
>> -  Hogstrom
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.
>>>
>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
>>>
>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>>>
>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.
>>>>
>>>> What about starting look into
>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
>>>
>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alex Karasulu
I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.

My 2 cents,
--Alex

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
        • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
        • Meecrowave (txmgr)
        • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
        • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
        • TomEE as delivery
        • Lot of standalone
        • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • OpenJPA
        • Johnzon
        • BatchEE
        • Karaf
        • Aries
        • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • Aries
        • Karaf
        • OpenJPA
        • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:
>
> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….
>
> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
>
> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.
>
> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)
>
> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.
>
> Any other bits being used?
>
> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.
>
> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>
>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>>
>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom
>> [hidden email]
>> <a href="tel:%2B1-919-656-0564" value="+19196560564">+1-919-656-0564
>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
>>
>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
>> -  Hogstrom
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.
>>>
>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
>>>
>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>>>
>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.
>>>>
>>>> What about starting look into
>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
>>>
>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>
>>
>




--
Best Regards,
-- Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Clebert Suconic
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
ActiveMQ Artemis and ActiveMQ 5.x are using JMS and JMS 2.0

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.
>
>
> Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
>         • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
>         • Meecrowave (txmgr)
>         • Aries (txmgr)
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
>         • Maven parents for geronimo-specs
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
>         • TomEE as delivery
>         • Lot of standalone
>         • -> we can ask Hendrik pby
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
>         • TomEE
>         • OpenWebBeans
>         • Meecrowave
>         • OpenJPA
>         • Johnzon
>         • BatchEE
>         • Karaf
>         • Aries
>         • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
>         • TomEE
>         • OpenWebBeans
>         • Meecrowave
>         • Aries
>         • Karaf
>         • OpenJPA
>         • CXF (supported)
>
> Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
> Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?
>
>
> I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.
>
> David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
> Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….
>>
>> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
>>
>> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.
>>
>> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)
>>
>> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.
>>
>> Any other bits being used?
>>
>> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.
>>
>> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
>>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>>
>>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
>>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>>>
>>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>>>
>>> Matt Hogstrom
>>> [hidden email]
>>> +1-919-656-0564
>>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
>>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
>>>
>>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
>>> -  Hogstrom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
>>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
>>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.
>>>>
>>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
>>>>
>>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>>>>
>>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about starting look into
>>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
>>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.
>>>>
>>>> —jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
>>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
>>>>
>>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>>>>
>>>> —jason
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Mark Struberg
In reply to this post by Alex Karasulu
I totally agree.

But interest from the community is always a product of a good product and feature roadmap.
Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable community around it.

Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a good product. But without product there is no community.
At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the people are great ;)

So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of interest.
The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest in those features or whether we could move then to another community. Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages. Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users.

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <[hidden email]>:
>
> I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.
>
> My 2 cents,
> --Alex
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.
>
>
> Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
>         • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
>         • Meecrowave (txmgr)
>         • Aries (txmgr)
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
>         • Maven parents for geronimo-specs
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
>         • TomEE as delivery
>         • Lot of standalone
>         • -> we can ask Hendrik pby
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
>         • TomEE
>         • OpenWebBeans
>         • Meecrowave
>         • OpenJPA
>         • Johnzon
>         • BatchEE
>         • Karaf
>         • Aries
>         • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
>         • TomEE
>         • OpenWebBeans
>         • Meecrowave
>         • Aries
>         • Karaf
>         • OpenJPA
>         • CXF (supported)
>
> Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
> Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?
>
>
> I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.
>
> David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
> Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?
>
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….
> >
> > Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
> >
> > Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.
> >
> > xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)
> >
> > yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.
> >
> > Any other bits being used?
> >
> > If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.
> >
> > If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >>
> >> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
> >> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
> >>
> >> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
> >>
> >> Matt Hogstrom
> >> [hidden email]
> >> +1-919-656-0564
> >> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
> >> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
> >>
> >> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
> >> -  Hogstrom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
> >>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
> >>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.
> >>>
> >>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
> >>>
> >>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
> >>>
> >>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.
> >>>>
> >>>> What about starting look into
> >>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
> >>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.
> >>>
> >>> —jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
> >>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
> >>>
> >>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
> >>>
> >>> —jason
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> -- Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by Alex Karasulu
+1

On Mar 9, 2017, at 5:46 AM, Alex Karasulu <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.

My 2 cents,
--Alex

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
        • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
        • Meecrowave (txmgr)
        • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
        • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
        • TomEE as delivery
        • Lot of standalone
        • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • OpenJPA
        • Johnzon
        • BatchEE
        • Karaf
        • Aries
        • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
        • TomEE
        • OpenWebBeans
        • Meecrowave
        • Aries
        • Karaf
        • OpenJPA
        • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:
>
> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….
>
> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?
>
> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.
>
> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)
>
> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.
>
> Any other bits being used?
>
> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.
>
> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>>
>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.
>>
>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom
>> [hidden email]
>> <a href="tel:%2B1-919-656-0564" value="+19196560564" class="">+1-919-656-0564
>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
>> Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter
>>
>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
>> -  Hogstrom
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.
>>>
>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.
>>>
>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.
>>>
>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.
>>>>
>>>> What about starting look into
>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.
>>>
>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.
>>>
>>> —jason
>>>
>>
>>
>




--
Best Regards,
-- Alex

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg

On Mar 8, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am not declaring this project dead.  I have started a long delayed public discussion about possibly moving Geronimo to the Attic.  We’ve had this discussion many times over the years on the private PMC list, out of concern of spooking potential public interest.  Now, I am declaring that it’s time to discuss this publicly; my opening of the discussion to the public spurred at the request of an ASF board member.

The questions you ask below, have they not already been asked, privately and publicly, multiple times over the past half decade?  Can you provide your opinion as to how many more unanswered calls to action must take place before the project can feel comfortable donating the used bits of Geronimo to the active OSS projects that actually use them?  Before the project embarks on yet another SOS it is important to know what is your concrete criteria that the project can use to honestly declare to the ASF board and corporate members that there is an active community here.  It is also important to know what is your concrete criteria for deciding that a reasonable effort has been made and it’s time to wind down.  Keep in mind that both criteria can be applied to what efforts and results have already taken place over the past decade.  Details as to what is different from this effort from what has been done in the past would be helpful to garner consensus.

These are not hard requirements being dictated by me, but a suggestion to prepare us for what will inevitably be asked of us should the project soldier on.  In addition to a consensus that an effort should be made, there should be a consensus on clear and transparent criteria for failure as well as success.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


Am 08.03.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:

I agree and I even acknowledged that below, but what I feel Mark and you are not acknowledging is that the interest/activity is for a smaller subset of JEE.  Of that subset, even you list the OSS projects that are supporting the JEE bits that are still relevant.  They have active communities and are even likely to be using our implementation of our specs, but that is not reflective of the viability of Geronimo as an active JEE project at the ASF.

Let us keep in mind that the raison d’être of Geronimo is the complete implementation of the JEE standard.  The JEE spec licensing that the project is bound to goes through excruciating lengths to make sure that the spec is implemented in toto and not piecemeal.  Given that the overwhelming bulk of the code is simply an inclusion of external OSS projects, when the existing active OSS projects are factored out there’s not a lot left.  There’s no denying that much of what’s left is good technology.  It’s just not enough to jumpstart a new active OSS community.  And this is the crux of the matter, community.

Does Geronimo still have good technology? Yes.

When one factors out the existing OSS overlap, is it enough to jumpstart a new active community?  No.

A few engineers applying patches once a year is not an active community.  To be sure the downstream OSS projects are appreciative.  However, what’s the point?  The engineering activity here is really a proxy for other OSS projects and not indicative of the viability of Geronimo as an active ASF project.  Things get fixed and released, but in the end the wider community goes to the other OSS projects to consume those artifacts.

Geronimo had a great run.  It made significant contributions to the industry.  However, the relevancy of the JEE spec has wained and the dearth of activity is concrete proof of that.

With that said, this does not prevent a set of enterprising engineers with “can do” attitudes to pick over the bones that are in the Attic and create another application server.  But that effort, IMO, will need to be borne in the Incubator.


Regards,
Alan


On Mar 8, 2017, at 1:34 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

I share that vision (the one of Mark).

The ee-commons part is really used and still active (even if in maintenance mode for several parts) and we need to ensure other projects can still rely on it (karaf, tomee, owb, meecrowave, openjpa, ... plus several open source ones).

EE is also not dead, likely no more trendy since server side techno is no more a challenge but still a real need.

Geronimo AppService not being really developped or maintained anymore I can see it being frozen (attic or not is a detail IMO) but other parts are still a very good fit for Geronimo community IMO.


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

2017-03-08 10:26 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>:
I see no lack of interest in Java EE to be honest. Of course Microservices are currently spilled high on the hype cycle, but that will quickly blow up imo.
MS architecture is only very good for a certain kind of application. For most business apps the granularity is way too fine grain and the missing TX handling is often a showstopper (even if Managers don't see this yet).

You are certainly right that there is a lack of interest in the *huge* big-iron app servers!
So yes, TomEE, Meecrowave etc fill the sweet spot which is interesting for 85% of apps.

I also do not have a problem with the missing TCK. Of course it would be better to have one. But the only real progress is currently in CDI and BVal and those TCKs are available under ALv2 even.

The main problem imo is that the Geronimo server part is not actively maintained anymore and OSGi is not a really good fit for JavaEE anyway. Not that OSGi itself is bad, but it's not a good fit.
Don't get me wrong, the Geronimo AppServer was a big step 14 years ago, and all the people involved in this effort back then layed a rock solid fundament for all that came after that. But the architecture is still quite outdated imo and it didn't get maintained for way too long.


Otoh there is really a lot of good technology available inside the geronimo project.

* geronimo-jta
* javamail
* xbean (including finder, scanner etc)
* the specs
and quite a few other nice parts and they still get committs and love.

I'd definitly keep them alive.

I'm aware that quite some older PMC members have historically been interested in the Geronimo AppServer and not in maintaining the ee-commons part of the geronimo project.
But instead of dumping the whole project I'd say we just retire the Geronimo AppServer and consolidate and focus on the single pieces. There are potentially other things like Sirona-incubating which we could move over as sub-projects even.

Of course I perfectly understand if some of the older PMC members which are not interested in the adopted roadmap want to retire.

txs for all the hard work!

LieGrue,
strub


Am 07.03.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:

IMO, consultants and researchers are the earthworms of a vibrant OS community that meets the standards sought after at the ASF.  I don’t see how we’re going to attract them.  While the ideas posited on the mailing lists are pretty interesting, I just don’t see any of the ideas attracting a larger active community.  The reasons for this are
     • the lack of interest in JEE
     • inability to use a reasonably current JEE TCK
     • the size and age of the legacy code base
     • project members unable to commit time resources to mentor new members
When one reads about JEE not being “dead yet”, one is actually reading about a very small subset of the JEE spec.  To be sure, there are interesting problems still to be solved within certain silos of JEE.  I can’t think of anything that would apply to the entire pantheon of JEE bits; imo TomEE is already focused on the sweet spot of JEE bits that are still relevant.  One is hard pressed to think of any JEE sub-system in Geronimo that is not already separate project. The reality is that Geronimo was an amalgam of OSS projects and the industry has preserved those JEE bits that are still relevant.  The "value add", in no small part, of Geronimo was the comprehensive testing of the JEE pantheon in toto via the TCK.

Given that we cannot use a reasonably current JEE TCK, the project is prevented from engaging in a role of JEE-commons of sorts.  Frankly, even if we were to get the current JEE TCK, nobody really cares anymore and, as I mentioned above, the interesting JEE bits are already being worked on elsewhere with their own specific TCKs.

The size and age of the codebase makes it virtually impenetrable.  When one precludes spec commits, I think the last real commit has been about a half a decade ago; I wouldn’t be surprised if it was longer.  I personally have been knee deep in it recently but find spelunking through it very daunting.  I’d rather spend any free time I have in some greenfield endeavor.

I’m certain that other project members and passersby are of the same mind.  Since I have such little time to do greenfield coding, I have even less time to mentor someone who is interested in tinkering with the code base.  I’ve no doubt that others are of the same mind on this as well; witness the dearth of replies to inquiries on this list.

There is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears in this project.  I, for one, am honored to have been able to work with the world’s brightest coders on the planet.  I have a lot of great memories, and hangovers, of our once vibrant community and it’s very hard for me to start this thread.  I think we should shutdown.  If anyone had a real interest in any kind of resurrection it would have happened by now.

If we have consensus on moving to the Attic, I will start a vote.  How things are “wound down” will be discussed in a separate thread, soon to follow.


Regards,
Alan Cabrera
V.P. Apache Geronimo

P.S.  Please resist the urge hop in and administer CPR.  Before jumping on the table, be brutally honest and ask yourself if you are operating on actionable facts, or fond well earned memories.







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
In reply to this post by Mark Struberg
It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a vibrant OSS project.  The product and community spring forth from that.  Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result in success.  Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they not fulfilling?”

That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be interested in this project?”  

That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is now focused on fulfilling a new need, X”.

What unfulfilled need is out there?


Regards,
Alan



On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I totally agree.

But interest from the community is always a product of a good product and feature roadmap.
Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable community around it.

Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a good product. But without product there is no community.
At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the people are great ;)

So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of interest.
The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest in those features or whether we could move then to another community. Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages. Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users.

LieGrue,
strub

Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <[hidden email]>:

I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.

My 2 cents,
--Alex

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
       • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
       • Meecrowave (txmgr)
       • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
       • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
       • TomEE as delivery
       • Lot of standalone
       • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • OpenJPA
       • Johnzon
       • BatchEE
       • Karaf
       • Aries
       • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • Aries
       • Karaf
       • OpenJPA
       • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:

I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….

Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?

Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.

xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)

yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.

Any other bits being used?

If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.

If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).




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

2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason



.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason








--
Best Regards,
-- Alex


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Romain Manni-Bucau
I have quite a hard time to understand why it is an issue having a project led by the aggregation of others and not by itself? Assume one sec we close Geronimo or it doesnt exist, then we'll move the bit of code in one of the project - let say tomee - and tomee will becomes the exact same kind of project. The alternative is to split in a lot of small projects but as mentionned a lot of overlap is in these projects in term of forces and it doesn't work really better, it just multiply the work load for each contributor. That's why I think G is not a bad solution as it is today. Scope surely needs to be refined like Mark started to do and objectives are clearly a bit different than a project pushing its own server/solution but I think there is a space for it and for Apache I think it is saner this way.


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

2017-03-09 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a vibrant OSS project.  The product and community spring forth from that.  Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result in success.  Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they not fulfilling?”

That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be interested in this project?”  

That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is now focused on fulfilling a new need, X”.

What unfulfilled need is out there?


Regards,
Alan



On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I totally agree.

But interest from the community is always a product of a good product and feature roadmap.
Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable community around it.

Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a good product. But without product there is no community.
At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the people are great ;)

So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of interest.
The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest in those features or whether we could move then to another community. Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages. Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users.

LieGrue,
strub

Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <[hidden email]>:

I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.

My 2 cents,
--Alex

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
       • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
       • Meecrowave (txmgr)
       • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
       • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
       • TomEE as delivery
       • Lot of standalone
       • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • OpenJPA
       • Johnzon
       • BatchEE
       • Karaf
       • Aries
       • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • Aries
       • Karaf
       • OpenJPA
       • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:

I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….

Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?

Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.

xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)

yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.

Any other bits being used?

If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.

If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).




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

2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason



.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason








--
Best Regards,
-- Alex



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic

Alan Cabrera-2
I’m not opposed to aggregation, per se.  I’m just trying to point out a possibly different way of jumpstarting community activity, a different way of searching for a new direction for Geronimo.

It’s different than doing an inventory of stuff we have and thinking, “how can we make this stuff more enticing to people?”  An inventory is good, but make sure that it’s not an inventory of deck chairs on the Titanic.  Collecting such an inventory may just be busywork, and a bit premature, without the the goal of fulfilling a specific need to provide direction.  The inventory of stuff as a starting point may blind one to other possibilities for Geronimo.

Elucidating the need comes first.  The enumerating features to fulfill that need comes second.  Once that is known it will help provide direction as to what parts of Geronimo are relevant and what aren’t, what parts need to be spruced up and what parts are fine as is.

Think BIG!

I have one idea.  It’s something that I don’t think has been done yet, at least to the extent that it’s been done at LinkedIn, and it fulfills a dire need.  

The management of runtime-configurations for heterogeneous global environments.  At LinkedIn, we treat runtime properties like code.  Not just in the sense of a “source code repository”, but also in the sense that services can declare what properties they consume and the CI/CD pipeline will prevent those properties from being borked.  This is very handy when properties are shared amongst multiple services across multiple fabrics.  It also does constraint checking to make sure properties adhere to certain constraints that can be set at the component code level, service level, and “SRE level”.

Such a system can provide visibility as to what properties are being used, not being used, or need to be provided before rolling a service into a new fabric/edge.

It fulfills a need for what is usually given little thought as a service is tossed over the wall for an SRE to contend with.  It forces early conversations between the component provider and the service owner.  It forces early conversations between a service owner and the SRE, before deployment.  It forces component and service owners to diligently consider how their products will be managed out in the field, possibly before code is even cut, and globally enforces those runtime contracts throughout the lifetime of that product in the CI/CD pipeline.

So, this isn’t just JEE.  This is JEE, Play, ATS, Docker, Rails, Httpd, NodeJS, Hadoop, …

This isn’t just services.  This is the CI/CD pipeline of Jenkins, Travis, …

Well, that’s it.  One idea to consider.


Regards,
Alan

On Mar 9, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have quite a hard time to understand why it is an issue having a project led by the aggregation of others and not by itself? Assume one sec we close Geronimo or it doesnt exist, then we'll move the bit of code in one of the project - let say tomee - and tomee will becomes the exact same kind of project. The alternative is to split in a lot of small projects but as mentionned a lot of overlap is in these projects in term of forces and it doesn't work really better, it just multiply the work load for each contributor. That's why I think G is not a bad solution as it is today. Scope surely needs to be refined like Mark started to do and objectives are clearly a bit different than a project pushing its own server/solution but I think there is a space for it and for Apache I think it is saner this way.


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

2017-03-09 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alan Cabrera <[hidden email]>:
It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a vibrant OSS project.  The product and community spring forth from that.  Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result in success.  Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they not fulfilling?”

That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be interested in this project?”  

That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is now focused on fulfilling a new need, X”.

What unfulfilled need is out there?


Regards,
Alan



On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I totally agree.

But interest from the community is always a product of a good product and feature roadmap.
Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable community around it.

Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a good product. But without product there is no community.
At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the people are great ;)

So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of interest.
The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest in those features or whether we could move then to another community. Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages. Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users.

LieGrue,
strub

Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <[hidden email]>:

I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties.

My 2 cents,
--Alex

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which components are used by other projects.


Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager
       • TomEE (txmgr+connector)
       • Meecrowave (txmgr)
       • Aries (txmgr)

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronimo-schema-javaee_6

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/
       • Maven parents for geronimo-specs

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/
       • TomEE as delivery
       • Lot of standalone
       • -> we can ask Hendrik pby

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • OpenJPA
       • Johnzon
       • BatchEE
       • Karaf
       • Aries
       • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use some official javax jars due to licensing concerns

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/
       • TomEE
       • OpenWebBeans
       • Meecrowave
       • Aries
       • Karaf
       • OpenJPA
       • CXF (supported)

Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or servicemix.
Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t?


I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something and I'll share it.

David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this inside the geronimo-server probably?
Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just inside geronimo?

txs and LieGrue,
strub


Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks <[hidden email]>:

I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely.  Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other projects? Off the top of my head….

Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own?

Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no one uses my jaspic implementation.  The TM is stable but now that faster than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably be rewritten to be much faster.

xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else?  Does activemq still use xbean-spring?  Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets xbean-blueprint to work:-)

yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about CORBA and start contributing.

Any other bits being used?

If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough interest to file the board reports?  Some days  I think I might have enough interest and some days not.

If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic?

thanks
david jencks

On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:

A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).




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

2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <[hidden email]>:
I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure.  For me, JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project apart from reading the e-mail threads.  This is a community decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue.

As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity.  If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed.

Matt Hogstrom
[hidden email]
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270
Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter

"I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am."
-  Hogstrom



On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <[hidden email]> wrote:

On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ([hidden email]) wrote:
Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this project. That is totally understandable and fine.
But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the project going.

Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a while).  I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I don’t think its enough to leave on its own.

We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still monitoring.  As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list.

Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we are right now.

What about starting look into
.) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons project?
So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication about this.  But we’ll see.

—jason



.) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that this is gonna happening?
I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any love in to any of what is presently here.

I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion.

—jason








--
Best Regards,
-- Alex




12
Loading...