You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> on 2006/05/01 07:32:33 UTC
Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
I have a few questions:
Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
been able to find much at all.
Where is this site currently hosted?
Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
Where is the source for the site?
Thanks,
John
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
I want to apologize for this email I sent...the address info came from
"whois geronimoplugins.com" and felt that even though its public
information, that in retrospect it was probably not a good idea to paste
it in the email. I was just asking about the ownership information and
did not mean anything offensive by this. My sincere apologies to the
Mulders.
Jeff
Jeff Genender wrote:
> I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I
> miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows:
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Mulder, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> None
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> United States
> (000) 000-0000 Fax --
>
> Technical Contact:
> Mulder, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> None
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> United States
> (000) 000-0000 Fax --
>
> Will this be discussed and will the domain's ownership be given to
> Apache? I hope this will involve the community, all the way from
> source, to look and feel, to how/what/where its hosted.
>
> Jeff
>
> John Sisson wrote:
>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
>> This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
>> been able to find much at all.
>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> Where is the source for the site?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
I have to agree with John here, as this comes as a big surprise. Did I
miss a discussion on this? The domain currently shows:
Administrative Contact:
Mulder, Erin meara@alumni.princeton.edu
None
706 Larkspur Lane
Warrington, Pennsylvania 18976
United States
(000) 000-0000 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Mulder, Erin meara@alumni.princeton.edu
None
706 Larkspur Lane
Warrington, Pennsylvania 18976
United States
(000) 000-0000 Fax --
Will this be discussed and will the domain's ownership be given to
Apache? I hope this will involve the community, all the way from
source, to look and feel, to how/what/where its hosted.
Jeff
John Sisson wrote:
> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
> This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
> been able to find much at all.
> Where is this site currently hosted?
> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> Where is the source for the site?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
I am one of those who just found it out by testing and documenting the console. I could not find any
reference anywhere, just a few svn commit.
I guess most of the questions will be addressed when we discuss it here on the dev list but in the
mean time, Aaron could you please share some info about the whole plugins philosophy/implementation
so I can add it to the documentation.
Thanks
Cheers!
Hernan
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>>On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
>>>default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
>>>This was introduced in
>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>>
>>>I have a few questions:
>>>
>>>Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
>>>been able to find much at all.
>>
>>No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
>>at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
>>the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
>>the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
>>gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
>>some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
>>it later today.
>>
>
>
> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>
>
>>>Where is this site currently hosted?
>>
>>Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>>
>>
>>>Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>>
>>No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
>>including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
>>for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>>open source and non-open source plugins.
>>
>
>
> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if
> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>
>
>>>Where is the source for the site?
>>
>>The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>>Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
>>need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
>>hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>>plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>>source is at Apache.
>>
>>The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>>source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>>we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
>>to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
>>-- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>
>
> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
> has gone about is not community focused.
>
> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> implementing it.
>
> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>
> Jeff
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> As far as whether plugins are valuable, here's an example to consider.
> Let's say someone gives you an EAR that contains a WAR and an EJB
> JAR, and uses JMS as well as a database pool. Your task is to get
> this running in Geronimo.
>
> Strategy 1: File-based (they provide EAR, you write 5 XML files)
> - install any required 3rd party JARs
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the DB pool
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for the JMS resources
> - deploy all those in some sensible order, each with the accompanying
> JAR file (the TranQL RAR and ActiveMQ RAR for the resources)
>
> Strategy 2: Use the console to your advantage (they provide EAR, you
> write 3 XML files)
> - install any required 3rd party JARs
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR
> - write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR
> - use the console to configure, test, and deploy the DB pool
> - use the console to configure and deploy the JMS resources
> - deploy the application
>
> Strategy 3: Install from a plugin (they provide plugin)
> - point Geronimo to the application plugin. Application, DB Pool,
> and JMS resources are all downloaded with their dependencies and
> everything is installed automatically in one shot.
What I read from these three strategies you described is like you would no longer able to package
your *ARs with all the required deployment plans. Is that so? why would you be able to package all
XMLs in a plugin but not in WAR or JAR ...
If someone gives you an EAR as you say then that's all you have, an EAR, not a plugin. If that
person is able to provide you with a plugin then that person can also provide you with an EAR
including all the app deployment plans as well as the plans (even scripts) for deploying other
resources such as data sources and JMS connection factories, etc.
> As far as whether different kinds of things should be plugins, patches
> and updates can use the plugin infrastructure, so we might as well
> consider them. And I don't think that either sample applications or
> an LDAP server are "core functions" that should be included with the
> default Geronimo download. It's fine if we have an installer package
> that lets you select some extensions to include in your installation,
> but if you just grap a zip or tarball, I'd much prefer that it was
> very clean/lightweight with easy links to install additional
> functionality.
So you are saying we are moving to have just one minimal distribution (little-G) and then we build
our own custom Geronimo solution?
I would really like to have a separate discussion about this approach.
We should also expand more about what is the vision, strategy and goals for the Geronimo project and
cast it in stone. Speaking just for myself, I have not had a good sense of direction lately. It
might be good to spend some time revising and discussing some of the things we give as granted and
some things we may have forgotten.
Having just three bullets on the welcome page does not quite say it, does it!? :)
>
> Another use case is the minimal Tomcat server. It will be possible to
> start with the lightest-weight Geronimo installation and add JMS or DB
> pools or EJB or the full J2EE bundle via plugins. Without
> re-installing your apps or restarting the server! Let's say you have
> an existing web app and you want to add JMS. Much nicer to make the
> new version of your app depend on an ActiveMQ resource group and just
> redeploy the plugin for your app and have JMS features downloaded and
> added to your server at runtime, so in the process of the app upgrade
> the new server features go in, the new resources go it, and it all
> goes live. Bam! (if you favor Emeril.) No need to do a separate
> Geronimo/J2EE installation and repeat any configuration you may have
> done in your old installation and them add new resources in the
> console and only then deploy your new app and find out at that time
> whether you've done everything right and all the dependencies are
> there (oops, forgot the security realm).
The jelly is starting to jell :D
A few things to consider though:
- Must consider offline installation.
- You should be able to point to not just URLs but also a local directory.
- You should be able to export just about anything in Geronimo as a plugin, no matter how that
resource/app was originally deployed (portability)
>
> For "production" use, I think it'll be nice in many situations to
> transfer a module directly from one server to another without
> redeploying. For example, from a dev box to a QA box, perhaps. Make
But that would not be production, that would be part of the development cycle, right!?
> absolutely sure you're using the same code. It won't always be
> appropriate, like if you require different EJB env-entry settings for
> the different environments, but it could handle something like your
> database pool points to a different DB in each environment but the app
> always points to the same database pool name.
Yup, while still in the development cycle (including QA) you will always point to different
resources. So I still can not see the difference from what I would normally do. For instance, you
have the application running on the test environment. This app uses a data source that points to a
local database. When you are done with testing and QA you move that app to the production
environment where you already have configured a data source with the same name but with different
connection parameters and pointing to the production database. Here is where I still can not see the
difference of having a plugin, you would require multiple plugins which in turn would only hold
either the application and deployment plans or the plans for a resource....
>
> Finally, I think plugins will be pretty effective for examples since
> they minimize the number of steps to get a group of related things
> installed. It's certainly possible to pack a lot into a single EAR if
> you're sufficiently clever about it, but with plugins it should be
> easier to have 1-stop installs for whatever modules you want people to
> have to work through things. There are even plugin lists so you can
> install 10 otherwise unrelated things in one bundle. No good if you
> want to teach them how to write a deployment plan, but hey.
What would be the steps for removing a plugin? I think it is equally important, if we provide a
single step install, we should also provide a single step uninstall and deal with all the dependencies.
Cheers!
Hernan
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the
>> physical location of the plugin server.
>>
>> We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is
>> to DEPLOY.
>>
>> For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to
>> be good for installing some
>> things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move
>> everything to plugins, then I
>> think it is a bad move.
>>
>> We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We
>> could separate into groups such
>> as (I am intentionally not including resources):
>>
>> 1. Geronimo modules
>> 2. Sample applications
>> 3. User applications
>> 4. Vendor applications
>>
>> This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps
>> to express my point. Following
>> the order from the list:
>>
>> Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as
>> plugins may be OK if these are
>> hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way
>> to distribute a patch/update
>> to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this
>> is not a viable solution).
>>
>> We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a
>> deployment alternative, the Apache
>> Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a
>> working sample site for configuring
>> your own plugins site.
>>
>> But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to
>> give just an example) and you
>> have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you
>> downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get
>> part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
>>
>> If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability,
>> performance and maintenance?
>>
>> In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this
>> will became the method of
>> choice for installing everyday applications. In a production
>> environment, it is very likely that
>> the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
>>
>> As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around
>> Apache Geronimo it is probably
>> that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo
>> included). Just like with the
>> Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for
>> distributing patches/updates, but we
>> wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
>>
>> In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site
>> implementing the security (if
>> needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing
>> and sensitivity of the plugins
>> to be installed.
>>
>> Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate
>> in the discussions before
>> seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole
>> deployment strategy should be
>> revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not
>> make the things easier.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Hernan
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
>> > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
>> > describe your position?
>> >
>> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
>> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
>> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
>> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
>> > possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
>> > primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
>> > offer our users the best of all available plugins.
>> >
>> > Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
>> > code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
>> > Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
>> > builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
>> > the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
>> > packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
>> > the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
>> >
>> > And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
>> > to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
>> > features or distribution model.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> > On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
>> >> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit
>> that
>> >> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
>> >> matter further.
>> >>
>> >> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this
>> out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Alan
>> >>
>> >> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> >> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
>> >> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
>> >> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
>> >> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
>> >> default.
>> >> >
>> >> > -dain
>> >> >
>> >> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com
>> site
>> >> >>>> as a
>> >> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> >> page.
>> >> >>>> This was introduced in
>> >> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I have a few questions:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >> >>>> haven't
>> >> >>>> been able to find much at all.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
>> >> discussions
>> >> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some
>> detail in
>> >> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
>> >> describing
>> >> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off
>> until it
>> >> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup
>> with
>> >> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some
>> documentation on
>> >> >>> it later today.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
>> >> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL
>> plugins,
>> >> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central
>> site
>> >> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>> >> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
>> >> and if
>> >> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
>> >> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be
>> appropriate. I
>> >> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to
>> someone's
>> >> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>> >> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you
>> just
>> >> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin
>> has
>> >> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>> >> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>> >> >>> source is at Apache.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>> >> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>> >> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who
>> want
>> >> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
>> >> part
>> >> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass
>> muster
>> >> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass
>> through
>> >> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
>> >> that the
>> >> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
>> >> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone
>> else is
>> >> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
>> >> albeit
>> >> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
>> >> this
>> >> >> has gone about is not community focused.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
>> >> should go
>> >> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
>> >> >> implementing it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jeff
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
As far as whether plugins are valuable, here's an example to consider.
Let's say someone gives you an EAR that contains a WAR and an EJB
JAR, and uses JMS as well as a database pool. Your task is to get
this running in Geronimo.
Strategy 1: File-based (they provide EAR, you write 5 XML files)
- install any required 3rd party JARs
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for the DB pool
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for the JMS resources
- deploy all those in some sensible order, each with the accompanying
JAR file (the TranQL RAR and ActiveMQ RAR for the resources)
Strategy 2: Use the console to your advantage (they provide EAR, you
write 3 XML files)
- install any required 3rd party JARs
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for WAR
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for EJB JAR
- write a Geronimo deployment plan for EAR
- use the console to configure, test, and deploy the DB pool
- use the console to configure and deploy the JMS resources
- deploy the application
Strategy 3: Install from a plugin (they provide plugin)
- point Geronimo to the application plugin. Application, DB Pool,
and JMS resources are all downloaded with their dependencies and
everything is installed automatically in one shot.
As far as whether different kinds of things should be plugins, patches
and updates can use the plugin infrastructure, so we might as well
consider them. And I don't think that either sample applications or
an LDAP server are "core functions" that should be included with the
default Geronimo download. It's fine if we have an installer package
that lets you select some extensions to include in your installation,
but if you just grap a zip or tarball, I'd much prefer that it was
very clean/lightweight with easy links to install additional
functionality.
Another use case is the minimal Tomcat server. It will be possible to
start with the lightest-weight Geronimo installation and add JMS or DB
pools or EJB or the full J2EE bundle via plugins. Without
re-installing your apps or restarting the server! Let's say you have
an existing web app and you want to add JMS. Much nicer to make the
new version of your app depend on an ActiveMQ resource group and just
redeploy the plugin for your app and have JMS features downloaded and
added to your server at runtime, so in the process of the app upgrade
the new server features go in, the new resources go it, and it all
goes live. Bam! (if you favor Emeril.) No need to do a separate
Geronimo/J2EE installation and repeat any configuration you may have
done in your old installation and them add new resources in the
console and only then deploy your new app and find out at that time
whether you've done everything right and all the dependencies are
there (oops, forgot the security realm).
For "production" use, I think it'll be nice in many situations to
transfer a module directly from one server to another without
redeploying. For example, from a dev box to a QA box, perhaps. Make
absolutely sure you're using the same code. It won't always be
appropriate, like if you require different EJB env-entry settings for
the different environments, but it could handle something like your
database pool points to a different DB in each environment but the app
always points to the same database pool name.
Finally, I think plugins will be pretty effective for examples since
they minimize the number of steps to get a group of related things
installed. It's certainly possible to pack a lot into a single EAR if
you're sufficiently clever about it, but with plugins it should be
easier to have 1-stop installs for whatever modules you want people to
have to work through things. There are even plugin lists so you can
install 10 otherwise unrelated things in one bundle. No good if you
want to teach them how to write a deployment plan, but hey.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server.
>
> We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY.
>
> For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some
> things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I
> think it is a bad move.
>
> We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such
> as (I am intentionally not including resources):
>
> 1. Geronimo modules
> 2. Sample applications
> 3. User applications
> 4. Vendor applications
>
> This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following
> the order from the list:
>
> Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are
> hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute a patch/update
> to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable solution).
>
> We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative, the Apache
> Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site for configuring
> your own plugins site.
>
> But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example) and you
> have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get
> part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
>
> If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance?
>
> In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this will became the method of
> choice for installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very likely that
> the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
>
> As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo it is probably
> that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like with the
> Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates, but we
> wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
>
> In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the security (if
> needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity of the plugins
> to be installed.
>
> Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before
> seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy should be
> revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
> > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
> > describe your position?
> >
> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
> > possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
> > primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
> > offer our users the best of all available plugins.
> >
> > Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
> > code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
> > Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
> > builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
> > the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
> > packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
> > the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
> >
> > And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
> > to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
> > features or distribution model.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
> >> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that
> >> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
> >> matter further.
> >>
> >> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
> >> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> >> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
> >> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
> >> default.
> >> >
> >> > -dain
> >> >
> >> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
> >> >>>> as a
> >> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> page.
> >> >>>> This was introduced in
> >> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I have a few questions:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >> >>>> haven't
> >> >>>> been able to find much at all.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
> >> discussions
> >> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> >> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
> >> describing
> >> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> >> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> >> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
> >> >>> it later today.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> >> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> >> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> >> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> >> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
> >> and if
> >> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> >> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> >> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> >> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> >> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> >> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> >> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
> >> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> >> >>> source is at Apache.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
> >> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> >> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> >> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
> >> part
> >> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> >> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> >> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
> >> that the
> >> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> >> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> >> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
> >> albeit
> >> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
> >> this
> >> >> has gone about is not community focused.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
> >> should go
> >> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> >> >> implementing it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+10000 to "First, I would really like to see and participate in the
discussions before seeing the changes already implemented.".
I guess the idea is similar (same?) as people putting up sites for
their Eclipse plugins. So +1 from me.
+1 to set up an ASF site for "our" plugins and make that the default.
Where "our" implies not just Geronimo but any other ASF project that
want to do a plugin as well. Just like the LDAP one. I can think of an
Axis2/Tuscany/Synapse/Ode/etc... plugins for automatic deploy of our
artifacts.
-- dims
On 5/1/06, Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server.
>
> We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY.
>
> For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some
> things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I
> think it is a bad move.
>
> We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such
> as (I am intentionally not including resources):
>
> 1. Geronimo modules
> 2. Sample applications
> 3. User applications
> 4. Vendor applications
>
> This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following
> the order from the list:
>
> Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are
> hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute a patch/update
> to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable solution).
>
> We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative, the Apache
> Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site for configuring
> your own plugins site.
>
> But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example) and you
> have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get
> part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
>
> If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance?
>
> In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this will became the method of
> choice for installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very likely that
> the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
>
> As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo it is probably
> that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like with the
> Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates, but we
> wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
>
> In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the security (if
> needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity of the plugins
> to be installed.
>
> Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before
> seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy should be
> revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier.
>
> Cheers!
> Hernan
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
> > let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
> > describe your position?
> >
> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
> > possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
> > primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
> > offer our users the best of all available plugins.
> >
> > Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
> > code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
> > Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
> > builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
> > the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
> > packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
> > the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
> >
> > And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
> > to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
> > features or distribution model.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
> >> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that
> >> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
> >> matter further.
> >>
> >> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> >> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
> >> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> >> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
> >> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
> >> default.
> >> >
> >> > -dain
> >> >
> >> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
> >> >>>> as a
> >> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> page.
> >> >>>> This was introduced in
> >> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I have a few questions:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >> >>>> haven't
> >> >>>> been able to find much at all.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
> >> discussions
> >> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> >> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
> >> describing
> >> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> >> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> >> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
> >> >>> it later today.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> >> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> >> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> >> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> >> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
> >> and if
> >> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> >> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> >> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> >> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> >> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> >> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> >> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
> >> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> >> >>> source is at Apache.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
> >> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> >> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> >> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
> >> part
> >> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> >> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> >> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
> >> that the
> >> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> >> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> >> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
> >> albeit
> >> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
> >> this
> >> >> has gone about is not community focused.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
> >> should go
> >> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> >> >> implementing it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
I think the issue to be discussed should be more than just the physical location of the plugin server.
We have just way to many alternatives to do the same thing, which is to DEPLOY.
For what I understand about the idea behind the plugins, they seem to be good for installing some
things and not so good for others. If the long-term plan is to move everything to plugins, then I
think it is a bad move.
We need to clearly separate what and how we deploy in Geronimo. We could separate into groups such
as (I am intentionally not including resources):
1. Geronimo modules
2. Sample applications
3. User applications
4. Vendor applications
This is just a rough, and certainly not complete, grouping but helps to express my point. Following
the order from the list:
Having some Geronimo "modules" and sample applications available as plugins may be OK if these are
hosted within the ASF. I think this could be a relatively painless way to distribute a patch/update
to the single server installation users (if you have many servers this is not a viable solution).
We develop/integrate the modules and samples so we provide, as a deployment alternative, the Apache
Geronimo plugins site. When fully documented, it ends up being a working sample site for configuring
your own plugins site.
But it would not feel right if you need to install the LDAP module (to give just an example) and you
have to go outside the ASF, a different server from where you downloaded the Geronimo binary, to get
part of the Apache Geronimo standard functionality.
If not hosted at the ASF, how would we ensure server availability, performance and maintenance?
In terms of user applications, I think it is very unlikely that this will became the method of
choice for installing everyday applications. In a production environment, it is very likely that
the command line tool will be the most popular alternative.
As for vendors applications, if you build your custom solution around Apache Geronimo it is probably
that you will distribute it all in one package (Apache Geronimo included). Just like with the
Geronimo modules example, plugins may be a good alternative for distributing patches/updates, but we
wouldn't call them plugins anymore would we!?
In this case the vendor should choose to have their own plugins site implementing the security (if
needed) to match the appropriate downloads depending on the licensing and sensitivity of the plugins
to be installed.
Two final thoughts. First, I would really like to see and participate in the discussions before
seeing the changes already implemented. Second and last, the whole deployment strategy should be
revised, including the repository. Having too many options does not make the things easier.
Cheers!
Hernan
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
> let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
> describe your position?
>
> I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
> possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
> primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
> offer our users the best of all available plugins.
>
> Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
> code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
> Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
> builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure. However,
> the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
> packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
> the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
>
> And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
> to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
> features or distribution model.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
>> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that
>> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
>> matter further.
>>
>> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
>> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
>> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
>> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by
>> default.
>> >
>> > -dain
>> >
>> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
>> >>>> as a
>> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> page.
>> >>>> This was introduced in
>> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have a few questions:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >>>> haven't
>> >>>> been able to find much at all.
>> >>>
>> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
>> discussions
>> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
>> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
>> describing
>> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
>> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
>> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
>> >>> it later today.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
>> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>> >>
>> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >>>
>> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >>>
>> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
>> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
>> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
>> and if
>> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
>> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
>> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
>> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>> >>
>> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
>> >>>
>> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
>> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
>> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>> >>> source is at Apache.
>> >>>
>> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
>> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
>> part
>> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>> >>
>> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
>> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
>> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
>> that the
>> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
>> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
>> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
>> albeit
>> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
>> this
>> >> has gone about is not community focused.
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
>> should go
>> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
>> >> implementing it.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
OK, I'll put in such a change tonight.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> >> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
> >> this is settled.
> >
> > If this is the decision, I can do it.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default.
>
> Understood.
>
> > This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking
> > nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that
> > you're suggesting the page itself should not contain).
>
> Until we resolve whether it should be the default, I
> suggest the following workaround:
>
> 1. Have the app say 'sorry, no default plugin location has
> not been configured. please see the file hoo-hah.txt'
> 2. Have hoo-hah.txt explain how to set the property (or
> whatever), and list known locations. At the moment
> that'll mean geronimoplugins.com
>
> This way we're making it a decision the *user* has to make,
> rather than making it for him. And we're not silently
> introducing a non-ASF site dependency into ASF code. Regardless
> of how the geronimoplugins-by-default discussion gets
> resolved, this should be a very simple change to either
> revert or to enhance.
>
> How do people feel about that as a workaround?
>
> And we may end up deciding to use geronimoplugins as
> the default -- at least until there's something better. :-)
>
> > In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until
> > there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied
> > with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can
> > confirm that). Who was the other vetoer?
>
> Jeff Genender expressed a -1, as did Alan. Hernan didn't actually
> veto, but he *did* say "I would really like to see and participate
> in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented."
> (Hernan, I hope I'm not quoting you out of context.) Matt and Dims
> said much the same.
>
> And I'm -1 also. When a change arouses this much controversy,
> I don't think it is a good thing to leave it in until vetoers
> are convinced. Not to mention that's not how it works.
>
> There is absolutely no reason why there *has* to be a working
> default in code currently only in svn. There is no requirement
> that the repository contain only working code.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRFeew5rNPMCpn3XdAQKx7wQA0B8Ag7NxngFjNbXI93VJtEn9t6t6SYfj
> J3Nf0KIU1jj7oDLrgF0Tltb0AeODfhy0JoP/MDrJ3zcl6TMyWzmv/8P0f2qrmZVx
> mhJCEwprEnUykGvaFtPWAD1UDKlLwz/7LaPT2G5oKBhR9LF9/kb93648l4g3BlGT
> ZQ83asB1s20=
> =t84U
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
>> this is settled.
>
> If this is the decision, I can do it.
Thank you.
> Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default.
Understood.
> This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking
> nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that
> you're suggesting the page itself should not contain).
Until we resolve whether it should be the default, I
suggest the following workaround:
1. Have the app say 'sorry, no default plugin location has
not been configured. please see the file hoo-hah.txt'
2. Have hoo-hah.txt explain how to set the property (or
whatever), and list known locations. At the moment
that'll mean geronimoplugins.com
This way we're making it a decision the *user* has to make,
rather than making it for him. And we're not silently
introducing a non-ASF site dependency into ASF code. Regardless
of how the geronimoplugins-by-default discussion gets
resolved, this should be a very simple change to either
revert or to enhance.
How do people feel about that as a workaround?
And we may end up deciding to use geronimoplugins as
the default -- at least until there's something better. :-)
> In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until
> there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied
> with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can
> confirm that). Who was the other vetoer?
Jeff Genender expressed a -1, as did Alan. Hernan didn't actually
veto, but he *did* say "I would really like to see and participate
in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented."
(Hernan, I hope I'm not quoting you out of context.) Matt and Dims
said much the same.
And I'm -1 also. When a change arouses this much controversy,
I don't think it is a good thing to leave it in until vetoers
are convinced. Not to mention that's not how it works.
There is absolutely no reason why there *has* to be a working
default in code currently only in svn. There is no requirement
that the repository contain only working code.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFeew5rNPMCpn3XdAQKx7wQA0B8Ag7NxngFjNbXI93VJtEn9t6t6SYfj
J3Nf0KIU1jj7oDLrgF0Tltb0AeODfhy0JoP/MDrJ3zcl6TMyWzmv/8P0f2qrmZVx
mhJCEwprEnUykGvaFtPWAD1UDKlLwz/7LaPT2G5oKBhR9LF9/kb93648l4g3BlGT
ZQ83asB1s20=
=t84U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
i was researching the old email threads on how maven set ibiblio as
default and found these :)
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102856845831969&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102634795116066&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-maven-dev&m=102721396814966&w=2
-- dims
On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> > I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some
> > hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the
> > direction we will be going.
>
> If Alan has rescinded his veto (I haven't seen that on the list
> yet), and there is precedent for an Apache app to have its
> find-it search look at non-ASF sites (with potentially conflicting
> licences) first by default, then I will change my veto also.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRFei95rNPMCpn3XdAQKHxwP/UHtP5sfaDrw3aAeobpd31GrNZAWlH6VH
> CXy/AB9wGRXOyB9jyPyjSmivhKkBsmbE9lPVz3nTk7NuZ7/48tCadY0PtWgcmX76
> wZBdMKegDNMk6xuaglxqmiKNLHjDtiwOr8IbfCf11ey/m2s8BBwiyrM8staPP1jq
> hBKNmUX6geI=
> =oKY2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some
> hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the
> direction we will be going.
If Alan has rescinded his veto (I haven't seen that on the list
yet), and there is precedent for an Apache app to have its
find-it search look at non-ASF sites (with potentially conflicting
licences) first by default, then I will change my veto also.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFei95rNPMCpn3XdAQKHxwP/UHtP5sfaDrw3aAeobpd31GrNZAWlH6VH
CXy/AB9wGRXOyB9jyPyjSmivhKkBsmbE9lPVz3nTk7NuZ7/48tCadY0PtWgcmX76
wZBdMKegDNMk6xuaglxqmiKNLHjDtiwOr8IbfCf11ey/m2s8BBwiyrM8staPP1jq
hBKNmUX6geI=
=oKY2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
I am now satisfied with Aarons approach as well - my -1 is now a +0. My
issues were more with discussing this before implementing (yes CTR may
apply, but this clearly has the potential for enough strife that solid
discussion should be appropriate on this topic).
Thanks for the lengthy emails as of late Aaron, that has helped me
considerably...and this is exciting stuff.
I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some
hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the
direction we will be going.
Jeff
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>> In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of
>> commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have
>> technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this
>> a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the
>> interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one.
>> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
>> this is settled.
>
> If this is the decision, I can do it.
>
> Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. This
> is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking
> nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that
> you're suggesting the page itself should not contain).
>
> In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until
> there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied
> with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can
> confirm that). Who was the other vetoer?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
>> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
>> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
>> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
>> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial
>> > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate.
>>
>> This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change
>> without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review'
>> aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies.
>> - --
>> #ken P-)}
>>
>> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>>
>> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b
>> hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW
>> ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw
>> TTAHd9aaHXk=
>> =jbh8
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of
> commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have
> technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this
> a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the
> interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one.
> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
> this is settled.
If this is the decision, I can do it.
Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default.
This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking
nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that
you're suggesting the page itself should not contain).
In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until
there is some reasonable alternative. Alan I believe was satisfied
with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can
confirm that). Who was the other vetoer?
Thanks,
Aaron
> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> > the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> > be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.
>
> Correct.
>
> > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial
> > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate.
>
> This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change
> without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review'
> aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies.
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b
> hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW
> ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw
> TTAHd9aaHXk=
> =jbh8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
> let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
> describe your position?
In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of
commit-then-review and expressed vetos. Vetos need to have
technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this
a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the
interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one.
Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
this is settled.
> I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
> the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
> Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
> be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.
Correct.
> To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial
> plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate.
This is part of the issue. The other part is making the change
without discussion. Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review'
aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFeRaZrNPMCpn3XdAQLUfwP9G7KBJKQ7+fKuinOiEaaZI9VouqCpLb0b
hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW
ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw
TTAHd9aaHXk=
=jbh8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I thought the point of this thread was to have a discussion? Please,
let's not have any more votes, let's have a discussion. Can you
describe your position?
I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site. But my understanding of the
Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
be distributed by the Apache infrastructure. To be as inclusive as
possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial plugins, I think the
primary plugin repository needs to be separate. We really want to
offer our users the best of all available plugins.
Also note that I'm not taking any position on the location of source
code. The source and configuration files for any plugins developed by
Apache will continue to be hosted at Apache, and the output of those
builds will continue to be available on Apache infrastructure.
However, the common plugin repository will also need a copy of the
packaged plugin files to make available for installation -- alongside
the packaged plugin files for any non-Apache plugins.
And, of course, we're only discussing plugins -- third-party add-ons
to Geronimo. I'm not suggesting any changes to the core Geronimo
features or distribution model.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/1/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
> non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that
> I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
> matter further.
>
> Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> > I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
> > console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> > wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
> > get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
> >>>> as a
> >>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
> >>>> This was introduced in
> >>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a few questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >>>> haven't
> >>>> been able to find much at all.
> >>>
> >>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
> >>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> >>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
> >>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> >>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> >>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
> >>> it later today.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> >> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
> >>
> >>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >>>
> >>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >>>
> >>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >>>
> >>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> >>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> >>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> >>> open source and non-open source plugins.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if
> >> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> >> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> >> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> >> personal site. We need consensus on this.
> >>
> >>>> Where is the source for the site?
> >>>
> >>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> >>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> >>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> >>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
> >>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> >>> source is at Apache.
> >>>
> >>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
> >>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> >>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> >>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
> >>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
> >>
> >> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> >> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> >> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
> >> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> >> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> >> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
> >> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
> >> has gone about is not community focused.
> >>
> >> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
> >> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> >> implementing it.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear what others think about this.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I do not agree. I do not think that we should have any sites that are
non-ASF, much less any non-ASF sites being the default. I do admit that
I have not thoroughly thought it out and am willing to discuss the
matter further.
Until such time, please consider this my -1 veto until we work this out.
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
> console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
> wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
> get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default.
>
> -dain
>
> On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
>>>> as a
>>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
>>>> This was introduced in
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>>>
>>>> I have a few questions:
>>>>
>>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>>>> haven't
>>>> been able to find much at all.
>>>
>>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
>>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
>>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
>>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
>>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
>>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
>>> it later today.
>>>
>>
>> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
>> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>>
>>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>>>
>>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>>>
>>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>>>
>>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
>>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
>>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>>> open source and non-open source plugins.
>>>
>>
>> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if
>> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
>> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
>> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
>> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>>
>>>> Where is the source for the site?
>>>
>>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
>>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
>>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>>> source is at Apache.
>>>
>>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
>>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
>>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>>
>> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
>> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
>> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
>> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
>> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
>> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
>> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
>> has gone about is not community focused.
>>
>> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
>> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
>> implementing it.
>>
>> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>>
>> Jeff
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I personally don't see a problem with this site specifically. The
console appears to support several plugin sites, so if anyone else
wants to setup a site they can. All I see us deciding is what sites
get added to the list by default, and which site is selected by default.
-dain
On May 1, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com
>>> site as a
>>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>>> page.
>>> This was introduced in
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>>
>>> I have a few questions:
>>>
>>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>>> haven't
>>> been able to find much at all.
>>
>> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and
>> discussions
>> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
>> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of
>> describing
>> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
>> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
>> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
>> it later today.
>>
>
> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>
>>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>>
>> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>>
>>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>>
>> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
>> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
>> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
>> open source and non-open source plugins.
>>
>
> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion
> and if
> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>
>>> Where is the source for the site?
>>
>> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
>> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
>> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
>> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
>> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
>> source is at Apache.
>>
>> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
>> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
>> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
>> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important
>> part
>> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>
> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope
> that the
> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus,
> albeit
> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which
> this
> has gone about is not community focused.
>
> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big
> should go
> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> implementing it.
>
> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>
> Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I should mention that the layout of the plugins is just that of a
Maven 2 repository, and the current plugins are configured to use
ibiblio as a secondary site for downloading JARs that are
dependencies. You can also point the console at another Geronimo
server, which is configured at act as a Maven 2 repository for this
purpose.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/1/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
> >> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
> >> This was introduced in
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >>
> >> I have a few questions:
> >>
> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
> >> been able to find much at all.
> >
> > No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
> > at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> > the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
> > the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> > gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> > some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
> > it later today.
> >
>
> I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
> community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>
> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >
> > Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> >
> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >
> > No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> > including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> > for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> > open source and non-open source plugins.
> >
>
> The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if
> it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
> source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
> personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
> personal site. We need consensus on this.
>
> >> Where is the source for the site?
> >
> > The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> > Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> > need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> > hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
> > plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> > source is at Apache.
> >
> > The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
> > source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> > we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> > to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
> > -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
>
> This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
> with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
> the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
> hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
> (Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
> ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
> with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
> has gone about is not community focused.
>
> I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
> through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
> implementing it.
>
> I would like to hear what others think about this.
>
> Jeff
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
>> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
>> This was introduced in
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
>> been able to find much at all.
>
> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
> at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
> the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
> the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
> gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
> some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
> it later today.
>
I think there needs to be significant discussion about this on our
community forums. This one has caught a few folks by surprise.
>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>
> Erin's currently donating the hosting.
>
>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>
> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> open source and non-open source plugins.
>
The hosting location is an issue. I think this needs discussion and if
it is going to be hosted somewhere that is non-ASF, I think an open
source locale such as Codehaus or SourceForge would be appropriate. I
personally am not happy with a link off our portal going to someone's
personal site. We need consensus on this.
>> Where is the source for the site?
>
> The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
> Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
> need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
> hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
> plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
> source is at Apache.
>
> The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
> source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
> we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
> to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
> -- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
This gets a -1 from me. Any links off our portal should pass muster
with the powers that be, which I believe probably should pass through
the PMC and very likely Apache, the community, and I would hope that the
hosting link is just as open as Geronimo/Apache is
(Codehaus/SF/java.net, etc). If Apache, the PMC, and everyone else is
ok with this, then I am willing to acquiesce based on consensus, albeit
with great dismay. The plugin idea is great, but the way in which this
has gone about is not community focused.
I don't mean to be the negative voice, but something this big should go
through significant discussion with the Geronimo community before
implementing it.
I would like to hear what others think about this.
Jeff
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
>> been able to find much at all.
>
> No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
> at TSSJS and so on.
Those do not count as Geronimo project discussions, any
more than do any meetings/calls that IBM might have, or
Intel, or WSO2, or schmoozing at OSCON.
Which doesn't mean that *every* change has to be discussed
on the Geronimo lists. Part of the freedom of doing
things in CTR (commit then review) mode is the ability
to make changes without them having to be discussed to
death first.
>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>
> No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
> including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
> for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
> open source and non-open source plugins.
This is an excellent reason for it to be hosted elsewhere.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFePiZrNPMCpn3XdAQK9UQP+Mbf+03yJWWElEvvnUDN7daiSYnwKGG81
vmeDktY2y1yNHFXUTYfSGMSKpkhE4PIrtx8Is+pv96BJ864npf7wVEShKjXgjmna
xd6GnLdQTKy9VN5CzcVWuAmC+hRcHpT2679akoAoC8zH08zFmSIHOcD+prJc8nED
DHfyVzZJu6k=
=FZ1L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 5/1/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as a
> default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations" page.
> This was introduced in http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I haven't
> been able to find much at all.
No, not really as such, more in little bits and pieces and discussions
at TSSJS and so on. Though I think it was covered in some detail in
the vision and goals writeup. I need to do a better job of describing
the plugin architecture, but I've been kind of holding off until it
gets out of the testing stages and I can put together a writeup with
some walkthroughs and so on. But I'll send out some documentation on
it later today.
> Where is this site currently hosted?
Erin's currently donating the hosting.
> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
No. Among other things, it needs to be able to host non-ASL plugins,
including GPL, commercial, whatever. We really need a central site
for *all* plugins, not separate places for ASL plugins and non-ASL
open source and non-open source plugins.
> Where is the source for the site?
The source for the plugins themselves is presently entirely in the
Geronimo SVN tree. To make a configuration into a plugin, you just
need an extra XML descriptor, and the Geronimo packaging plugin has
hooks to insert that into CARs as they are built. However, as new
plugins come in, it will no longer be the case that all the plugin
source is at Apache.
The source for the web site itself is on the site. It's not open
source (e.g. the images are not redistributable as such), however,
we'd be glad to set up accounts for any Geronimo committers who want
to work on the site. And the web site really isn't the important part
-- it just a way to navigate to the plugins themselves.
Bottom line, I feel strongly that we need a wide-ranging plugin
ecosystem, like many other plugin-based projects that come to mind,
and due to redistribution limitations it doesn't seem workable to host
it at Apache. Our goal here is not to create a little fiefdom, but to
provide the widest possible set of plugins to the Geronimo community,
in an easy to reach fashion.
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would
> take. I think we at least need to understand what is possible and not
> simply speculate on it.
Speaking w/ my infra hat, there is a strong aversion to single-sourcing
resources on ASF infra when they can be mirrored or embedded.
I don't think we'd want to host plugins here unless we could mirror the
repo. I'd imagine millions of copies of Geronimo banging away walking
the repo would irritate someone :)
(Also, remember the joke "Don't reboot the JBoss server - Sourceforge is
down so the schemas won't resolve...")
That's why I suggested changing the model so that there is a simple
meta-data document that Geronimo the software reads to get info on
either the plug-in list a set of URLs to plug-in lists...
geir
>
> Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to
> leaving the www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a
> list from somewhere.
>
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>> +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
>>> default and we need an ASF option as the default."
>>
>> Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a
>> ASF location and a persistent URL for it?
>> - --
>> #ken P-)}
>>
>> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>>
>> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM
>> WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L
>> Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e
>> LlYwtP/2j1I=
>> =/+xG
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Matt,
Just a thought, We could do it from the geronimo solaris zone...that
way everyone involved have instant karma on the box to do the needful.
thanks,
dims
On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would take. I think we at least need
> to understand what is possible and not simply speculate on it.
>
> Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to leaving the
> www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a list from somewhere.
>
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
> >> default and we need an ASF option as the default."
> >
> > Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a
> > ASF location and a persistent URL for it?
> > - --
> > #ken P-)}
> >
> > Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> > Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
> >
> > "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM
> > WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L
> > Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e
> > LlYwtP/2j1I=
> > =/+xG
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I am volunteering to research with Infra to find out what it would take. I think we at least need
to understand what is possible and not simply speculate on it.
Per my other e-mail. I would like to pursue this tack in parallel to leaving the
www.geronimoplugins.com as a default / find a way to get a list from somewhere.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
>> default and we need an ASF option as the default."
>
> Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a
> ASF location and a persistent URL for it?
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM
> WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L
> Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e
> LlYwtP/2j1I=
> =/+xG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
With some guidance, sure. At least for ASF plugins.
thanks,
dims
On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
> > default and we need an ASF option as the default."
>
> Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a
> ASF location and a persistent URL for it?
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM
> WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L
> Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e
> LlYwtP/2j1I=
> =/+xG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
> default and we need an ASF option as the default."
Dims, Matt, are you volunteering to maintain such a
ASF location and a persistent URL for it?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFeWeZrNPMCpn3XdAQKDTQP/aQTjgDQH0mVE4/E9/Tq+8A3O/P1u8asM
WLkLBN6MRcedNJZxEw1JArgVLEEyV7i78mxemefAR1OAfAe8I8qDf9RcAeyaqq5L
Diy7nDiMJbSukGi+MIWj5qXLzLD0KfgWnYlV9wC8HZZkIfF4hLJOxt0QTa7hxM7e
LlYwtP/2j1I=
=/+xG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 to "I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the
default and we need an ASF option as the default."
On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>
> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability
> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the
> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>
> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is
> a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability.
>
> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the
> information contained on their site.
>
> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the
> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed.
> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>
> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the
> default.
>
> Matt
>
> David Jencks wrote:
> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
> >
> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> page. This was introduced in
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >>
> >> I have a few questions:
> >>
> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> Where is the source for the site?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Just like gump descriptors...which builds all sorts of stuff with all
sorts of licenses.
-- dims
On 5/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
> >
> > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
> >
> > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>
> Here's a alternative idea...
>
> How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even
> cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is
> ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...?
>
> Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here -
> just send a message to the mail list to have it included...
>
> Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses
> (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if
> you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that
> aren't from the ASF, etc.
>
> geir
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
I think Geir is really onto something here. I spent a couple of years
working on a project whose goal was to facilitate software reuse
across the scientific computing community, which often uses a
development model similar to open source. Our initial approach was to
create a monolithic repository for all the software files and this led
to a number of problems, everything from issues with intellectual
property rights to debates on look and feel (sound familiar?). The
more successful approach was to create a customizable data model for
the software metadata and to harvest the entire collection of metadata
into a centralized repository that contained pointers to the files
hosted elsewhere. Here's the project url with papers 'n stuff in case
anyone is interested in reading further http://icl.cs.utk.edu/rib/
Best wishes,
Paul
On 5/2/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
> >
> > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
> >
> > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>
> Here's a alternative idea...
>
> How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even
> cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is
> ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...?
>
> Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here -
> just send a message to the mail list to have it included...
>
> Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses
> (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if
> you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that
> aren't from the ASF, etc.
>
> geir
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
>>
>> Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
>>
>> We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
>> entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>
> Here's a alternative idea...
>
> How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or
> even cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when
> Geronimo is ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...?
>
> Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here
> - just send a message to the mail list to have it included...
>
> Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses
> (including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted,
> if you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that
> aren't from the ASF, etc.
I really like this idea. It's simple and should be easy to setup.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
>
> Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
>
> We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
Here's a alternative idea...
How about hosting the directory/metadata of plugins at the ASF (or even
cooler, do something mirrored to avoid the ire of infra when Geronimo is
ubiquitous) and just have URLs to the plugin locations...?
Then that drives all plug-in authors to come and "register" them here -
just send a message to the mail list to have it included...
Then it doesn't matter - you can list plugins under all licenses
(including proprietary) - and they are hosted where they are hosted, if
you know what I mean. No worries about Apache hosting things that
aren't from the ASF, etc.
geir
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[Apologoes for the apparent asynchronicity of my replies;
my mail paths have been tortuous today.]
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
Given that Maven has set a precedent here, I withdrawn my
- -1 on geronimoplugins.com as a default. Which means AFAIK
that it's just Alan left.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFfVO5rNPMCpn3XdAQIhsAP9G09x64Zya2X2c2Th+aLk4IDqmk1l9Ko+
yhlJa75FNxmkzp78O9wLK9vGppa1Un5Oz2X55Lt9PRJd3Bsw33UF8jVNtCtCAmnf
ADHOaKWFbMhyZI9mumybr2yzKDRYkROVw9nooYO5g6oOJShy6mN9qjsmZLfChjU7
8m5lpktoDh4=
=pIO9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I'm a bit concerned about this issue impacting the 1.1 release. There are many questions that need
to be resolved but I expect that investigating Apache Infra, what other sites will there be, etc.
I think we can all agree that the feature is awesome. So, that said it needs to go into the release
and I hope that is not in dispute.
The primary issue is "Where is the site?" Right now the only site that is available is
www.geronimoplugins.com. So, that as a default is fine with me. We should have something similar
at the ASF for Apache software that we decide to make available. Quite honestly, the work to build,
test and release a plugin from the project seems pretty tedious to me and I expect that we as a
project won't like that revving these things.
I propose we add the ability to have the server get a list from the geronimo.apache.org website.
For now the default remains www.geronimoplugins.com until we have a better solution.
Remember, this is not a dependency on other sites but rather an optional feature that allows for
extension points. The server DOES NOT require the plugin function. It is an optional feature.
My perspective as the 1.1 release manager is we leave it as is except for the ability to get a list
from our site (or perhaps the maven ecosystem).
I think we're all excited about the feature. Let's make this happen.
I'll +1 my own suggestion.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> So it would be possible to construct a plugin list in the console from
> a variety of sources, or from a source containing pointers to other
> sources. I would like to minimize the number of network connections
> required to generate a single console page (to avoid console hangs if
> one of 11 sites is presently offline). So of these approaches, I'd
> prefer if the "central site" (Apache or whatever) maintained the
> master list of metadata and the console just downloaded that and used
> it to render the available list, and only hit the other sites for the
> actual downloads.
>
> So there are two issues if we go that way:
>
> 1) I think we still want a consolidated web-based plugin list for
> people who want to browse the available plugins without doing it
> through the console of a running Geronimo server. This could
> potentially be auto-generated from the master metadata, so long as
> that doesn't make it look terrible.
>
> 2) We still need a place to host non-Apache plugins for people who
> don't have an appropriate site of their own.
>
> One possibility is to keep the geronimoplugins.com site where it is to
> serve those duties, but maintain the master plugin metadata list at
> Apache. Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for
> maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people
> with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's
> providing, of course.) One advantage to this kind of approach is that
> we could put a hash for each plugin in the master metadata file and
> then you'd have to break 2 servers to swap in a corrupted file.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to
>> mitigate that is to have the
>> internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so
>> they can all be searched and a
>> comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user
>> with the source of the plugin
>> displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or
>> where the sites are. If the
>> sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then
>> the content is invisible.
>> This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites
>> individually which is a problem that we
>> have today regardless of what the default is.
>>
>> Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the
>> default, the user's life is
>> simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary
>> issue. The site's that have
>> the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select
>> the one they want.
>>
>> Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display
>> an optional license file that
>> is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that
>> information about what license they are
>> accepting.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
>> >
>> > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
>> >
>> > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
>> > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>> >
>> > To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
>> > the best selection to the user.
>> >
>> > If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
>> > we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
>> > want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an
>> > Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
>> > images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
>> >
>> > There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
>> > organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
>> > ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another
>> > recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
>> > updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
>> > which is also fine.
>> >
>> > Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
>> > offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
>> > for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the
>> > widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
>> > available to Geronimo users.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> > On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>> >>
>> >> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I
>> >> believe their availability
>> >> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is
>> >> currently available for the
>> >> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>> >>
>> >> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build
>> >> the server. I think there is
>> >> a different constituency of people that would be depending on
>> >> availability.
>> >>
>> >> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there
>> >> are other places to get the
>> >> information contained on their site.
>> >>
>> >> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to
>> >> life. I also think the
>> >> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of
>> >> material that is non-ASF licensed.
>> >> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the
>> default
>> >> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the
>> >> www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
>> >> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>> >>
>> >> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and
>> >> we need an ASF option as the
>> >> default.
>> >>
>> >> Matt
>> >>
>> >> David Jencks wrote:
>> >> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I
>> don't see
>> >> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at
>> ibiblio,
>> >> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes
>> oodles of
>> >> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo
>> that
>> >> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
>> >> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized
>> content?
>> >> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins
>> into a
>> >> > server, so the process of building the server for your
>> application can
>> >> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks
>> >> > david jencks
>> >> >
>> >> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com
>> site as
>> >> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> >> >> page. This was introduced in
>> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have a few questions:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
>> >> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >> >> Where is the source for the site?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Erin Mulder <me...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Isn't there a bigger security concern here? Say some guy shows up and
> says he is from organization X and wants to add the latest XSoft
> application to the index.... get my point?
Regardless of where things are hosted, I think it would be nice to
eventually be able to support plugins signed with X.509** certificates
so that people can verify the authenticity of signed plugins and
knowingly accept risk when they install an unsigned plugin.
For the first release though, a warning on the plugin page ought to
suffice. I think it's important to get the technology out there and
start getting feedback, inspiring plugin developers, etc.
Cheers,
Erin
**I am a fan of GPG/PGP, but it's more tedious / less useful than
centralized PKI for most users who haven't established a strong web of
trust.
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Isn't there a bigger security concern here? Say some guy shows up
and says he is from organization X and wants to add the latest XSoft
application to the index.... get my point?
I don't think the Apache Geronimo project has the free time to
provide the due diligence that this type of site requires. I would
prefer that we take advantage of groups that want to run such a
site. I'm thinking of Aaron, Apache for Apache plugins, and maybe
one day we can just use the central Maven repository.
-dain
On May 2, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for
>> maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of
>> people
>> with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's
>> providing, of course.)
>
> No. we do it for gump already.
>
> thanks,
> dims
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
On 5/2/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for
> maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people
> with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's
> providing, of course.)
No. we do it for gump already.
thanks,
dims
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
So it would be possible to construct a plugin list in the console from
a variety of sources, or from a source containing pointers to other
sources. I would like to minimize the number of network connections
required to generate a single console page (to avoid console hangs if
one of 11 sites is presently offline). So of these approaches, I'd
prefer if the "central site" (Apache or whatever) maintained the
master list of metadata and the console just downloaded that and used
it to render the available list, and only hit the other sites for the
actual downloads.
So there are two issues if we go that way:
1) I think we still want a consolidated web-based plugin list for
people who want to browse the available plugins without doing it
through the console of a running Geronimo server. This could
potentially be auto-generated from the master metadata, so long as
that doesn't make it look terrible.
2) We still need a place to host non-Apache plugins for people who
don't have an appropriate site of their own.
One possibility is to keep the geronimoplugins.com site where it is to
serve those duties, but maintain the master plugin metadata list at
Apache. Is Apache going to have any issues being responsible for
maintaining this list of all kinds of plugins from all kinds of people
with all kinds of licenses? (So long as it's only the metadata it's
providing, of course.) One advantage to this kind of approach is that
we could put a hash for each plugin in the master metadata file and
then you'd have to break 2 servers to swap in a corrupted file.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to mitigate that is to have the
> internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched and a
> comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the plugin
> displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. If the
> sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible.
> This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem that we
> have today regardless of what the default is.
>
> Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life is
> simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue. The site's that have
> the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want.
>
> Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license file that
> is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license they are
> accepting.
>
> Matt
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
> >
> > Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
> >
> > We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> > entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
> >
> > To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
> > the best selection to the user.
> >
> > If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
> > we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
> > want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an
> > Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
> > images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
> >
> > There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
> > organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
> > ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another
> > recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
> > updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
> > which is also fine.
> >
> > Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
> > offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
> > for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the
> > widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
> > available to Geronimo users.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> > On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
> >>
> >> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I
> >> believe their availability
> >> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is
> >> currently available for the
> >> Geronimo Plugins Site.
> >>
> >> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build
> >> the server. I think there is
> >> a different constituency of people that would be depending on
> >> availability.
> >>
> >> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there
> >> are other places to get the
> >> information contained on their site.
> >>
> >> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to
> >> life. I also think the
> >> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of
> >> material that is non-ASF licensed.
> >> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
> >> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the
> >> www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
> >> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
> >>
> >> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and
> >> we need an ASF option as the
> >> default.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >> David Jencks wrote:
> >> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
> >> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
> >> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
> >> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
> >> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
> >> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
> >> >
> >> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
> >> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
> >> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
> >> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
> >> >
> >> > thanks
> >> > david jencks
> >> >
> >> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
> >> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> >> page. This was introduced in
> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >> >>
> >> >> I have a few questions:
> >> >>
> >> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
> >> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> >> Where is the source for the site?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> John
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Your point about the number of available plugins is valid. One way to mitigate that is to have the
internal plugin component enhanced to use the list of plugin sites so they can all be searched and a
comprehensive list of plugins from all sites presented to the user with the source of the plugin
displayed alongside the plugin. Then it doesn't matter how many or where the sites are. If the
sites are up then the content will be displayed, if they're down then the content is invisible.
This way the user doesn't have to iterate through the sites individually which is a problem that we
have today regardless of what the default is.
Would this enhancement resolve the issues as Geronimo can be the default, the user's life is
simplified and the number and location of the sites is not the primary issue. The site's that have
the content would be visible next to teh plugin so the user can select the one they want.
Another enhancement would be for the plugin manger to list and display an optional license file that
is included in the plugin so users would be able to get that information about what license they are
accepting.
Matt
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
>
> Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
>
> We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>
> To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
> the best selection to the user.
>
> If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
> we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
> want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an
> Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
> images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
>
> There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
> organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
> ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another
> recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
> updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
> which is also fine.
>
> Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
> offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
> for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the
> widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
> available to Geronimo users.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>>
>> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I
>> believe their availability
>> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is
>> currently available for the
>> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>>
>> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build
>> the server. I think there is
>> a different constituency of people that would be depending on
>> availability.
>>
>> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there
>> are other places to get the
>> information contained on their site.
>>
>> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to
>> life. I also think the
>> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of
>> material that is non-ASF licensed.
>> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
>> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the
>> www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
>> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>>
>> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and
>> we need an ASF option as the
>> default.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
>> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
>> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
>> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
>> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
>> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
>> >
>> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
>> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
>> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
>> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
>> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> >> page. This was introduced in
>> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >>
>> >> I have a few questions:
>> >>
>> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
>> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >> Where is the source for the site?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Erin Mulder <me...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
Hernan Cunico wrote:
> Can anybody provide details (user/developer guide
> documentation level) about the architecture and design. We desperately
> need those details added to the product documentation, what we have
> today is far from enough.
Aaron posted two links to the list yesterday (Subject: About Geronimo
Plugins). The first led to a short FAQ. The second led to a 58-page
PDF that walked through a lot of the details as they stand today.
Cheers,
Erin
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hernan Cunico wrote:
>
> Aaron, all the decisions should be made on the dev list, specially if
> the discussion was over IRC, you know that. We should be discussing
> about the plugins before implementing them, not after.
I disagree. Under CTR, everyone should be free to put in whatever
they want. Part of the *price* of that freedom, however, is
having to back out changes if someone raises an objection. What
we're seeing here is the CTR process working exactly as it should.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFeiR5rNPMCpn3XdAQIe1gP/XPDTzej2Od0r65R3fsdL3lw2VewYgsn8
v5VoLyHtnrW4SsmPoNG8765DH90nDWfcg1/2pZc1o10pB32rwfuwl9nV7kgE4KMo
wnUjwQDG9bmLCVy/SxFMVbqFlj7OaINmKDI+iv7+MB4I9oK34DmAgvOc9WaNN29V
3Q/Dbsii09g=
=oHIV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
>
> Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
>
> We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
> entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
>
> To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
> the best selection to the user.
>
> If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
> we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
> want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an
> Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
> images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
>
> There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
> organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
> ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another
> recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
> updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
> which is also fine.
Aaron, all the decisions should be made on the dev list, specially if the discussion was over IRC,
you know that. We should be discussing about the plugins before implementing them, not after.
Based on the previous paragraph are you also proposing the creation of a "separate organization",
did I get that right ???? Isn't the project "Apache" Geronimo??? why would we strip it to the bone
and have all the functionality available elsewhere?
I do not believe the next paragraph is a long enough explanation/justification. I think a deeper
analysis should be made about the pros and cons.
>
> Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
> offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
> for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the
> widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
> available to Geronimo users.
Again, I think we need to discuss further the whole approach and the implications. Can anybody
provide details (user/developer guide documentation level) about the architecture and design. We
desperately need those details added to the product documentation, what we have today is far from
enough. I can't write everything by myself, so please help with the documentation (that applies to
all the topics)
Cheers!
Hernan
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>>
>> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I
>> believe their availability
>> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is
>> currently available for the
>> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>>
>> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build
>> the server. I think there is
>> a different constituency of people that would be depending on
>> availability.
>>
>> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there
>> are other places to get the
>> information contained on their site.
>>
>> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to
>> life. I also think the
>> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of
>> material that is non-ASF licensed.
>> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
>> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the
>> www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
>> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>>
>> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and
>> we need an ASF option as the
>> default.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
>> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
>> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
>> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
>> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
>> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
>> >
>> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
>> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
>> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
>> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
>> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> >> page. This was introduced in
>> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>> >>
>> >> I have a few questions:
>> >>
>> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
>> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> >> Where is the source for the site?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I have to disagree with putting up an ASF option as the default.
Let's say there are 50 plugins produced by Apache and 70 by outsiders.
We have a choice to make the default a repository containing 50
entries, or a repository containing 120 entries. What makes sense?
To me, this is a no-brainer, you make the default the one that offers
the best selection to the user.
If you're worried about site maintenance, as I've said repeatedly,
we're more than happy to provide accounts to Geronimo committers who
want to help out. We could also move much of the site content to an
Apache SVN repo if you like, leaving the non-free content such as
images as URLs that will need to be resolved by the browser.
There was a proposal on IRC to set up a separate non-profit
organization to manage the plugin site, and I think we'd be happy to
ultimately transition the site to such an organization. Another
recommendation was to allow the list of available plugin sites to be
updated on demand (e.g. not only updated by new Geronimo releases),
which is also fine.
Finally, remember, this is not a proposal to host the Geronimo core
offsite, or to replace the Apache repository as the authoritative site
for downloads of Apache components. This is a method to make the
widest possible selection of third-party / after-market components
available to Geronimo users.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 5/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
>
> * IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability
> requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the
> Geronimo Plugins Site.
>
> * We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is
> a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability.
>
> * IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the
> information contained on their site.
>
> Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the
> www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed.
> However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
> http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
> dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
>
> I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the
> default.
>
> Matt
>
> David Jencks wrote:
> > I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
> > how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
> > which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
> > non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
> > gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
> > geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
> >
> > Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
> > I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
> > server, so the process of building the server for your application can
> > be somewhat integrated into your build process.
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >
> >> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
> >> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
> >> page. This was introduced in
> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
> >>
> >> I have a few questions:
> >>
> >> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> >> haven't been able to find much at all.
> >> Where is this site currently hosted?
> >> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> >> Where is the source for the site?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I agree that in principle its different with the following exceptions.
* IBiblio is maintained by a staff of engineers at Chapel Hill. I believe their availability
requirements and staffing are an order of magnitude above what is currently available for the
Geronimo Plugins Site.
* We do not point to IBiblio for a running server, we use it to build the server. I think there is
a different constituency of people that would be depending on availability.
* IBiblio is a mirror of other content sites so if it is down there are other places to get the
information contained on their site.
Again, I'm in favor of the plugin concept and Aaron has brought it to life. I also think the
www.geronimoplugins.com is a great way to distribute a variety of material that is non-ASF licensed.
However, from a project perspective I think we should make the default
http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins and have the www.geronimoplugins.com as an alternate site in the
dropdown list along with any other sites that people choose to put up.
I do not think we should make the geronimoplugins site the default and we need an ASF option as the
default.
Matt
David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't see
> how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at ibiblio,
> which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes oodles of
> non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven repo that
> gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an apache
> geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
>
> Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized content?
> I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install plugins into a
> server, so the process of building the server for your application can
> be somewhat integrated into your build process.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site as
>> a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export Configurations"
>> page. This was introduced in
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>>
>> I have a few questions:
>>
>> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
>> haven't been able to find much at all.
>> Where is this site currently hosted?
>> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
>> Where is the source for the site?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On May 2, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>> I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't
>> see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at
>> ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes
>> oodles of non-asl compatible stuff.
>
> If you install Maven out of the box, is the iBiblio repository
> searched by default? Or do you need to tweak the property?
> I believe it needs to be manually added.
It is the default.
-dain
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Jencks wrote:
> I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't
> see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at
> ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes
> oodles of non-asl compatible stuff.
If you install Maven out of the box, is the iBiblio repository
searched by default? Or do you need to tweak the property?
I believe it needs to be manually added.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRFeRyJrNPMCpn3XdAQJXbAQAvk64R2KHKZ0JmdRsx/t7GtXlscXDLWAx
TSr9QYdLk6jvdGctiG5LLFfdpurgo3QEFGk6yYvS73/pQmEXMppKCKgWNnyTUuT9
KK2PYzPcntMQ3UR+bCtaZATJoKGm/2Zwh7/dAUoMq6tUO+5srtUKnFn5c/t9zmP/
jHL8GfQdrzc=
=vdN7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I haven't looked in detail at the current plugin site, but I don't
see how it is different in principle to the primary maven repo at
ibiblio, which is certainly not on apache hardware, as it distributes
oodles of non-asl compatible stuff. Just as there is an apache maven
repo that gets synched to the ibiblio one, I have no problem with an
apache geronimo plugin repo that is synched to a more inclusive one.
Is the plugin site essentially a maven 2 repo with specialized
content? I would hope that we have a maven (2) plugin to install
plugins into a server, so the process of building the server for your
application can be somewhat integrated into your build process.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 30, 2006, at 10:32 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> I noticed that the 1.1 console has the www.geronimoplugins.com site
> as a default value for the URL in the "Import/Export
> Configurations" page. This was introduced in http://
> svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394605&view=rev .
>
> I have a few questions:
>
> Was the plugin concept, site etc. discussed on the dev list? I
> haven't been able to find much at all.
> Where is this site currently hosted?
> Will it be an ASF hosted site before the 1.1 release goes out?
> Where is the source for the site?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>