You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/02 11:03:42 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Hi All...
+1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as
to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
On 12/3/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> during incubation
>
> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>
> +1 from me
>
> --
> David
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
Ok, +1 from me as I don't remember I have already voted.
Dave, when will the tally taken?
Jacek
On 7/2/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
>
> Mohammed Nour wrote:
> > Hi All...
> >
> > +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> > project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo,
> > as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> >
> >
> > On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> > <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> > Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> >
> > Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> > during incubation
> >
> > [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> > sub-project of Geronimo
> > [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> > [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> >
> > +1 from me
> >
> > --
> > David
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
+1 - Don't think my vote counts...but I am showing my support anyways ;-)
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo,
> as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>
>
> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
>
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> during incubation
>
> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>
> +1 from me
>
> --
> David
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
>> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
>> Geronimo, as
>> to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>
> It is and it will end up as such.
IIUC, it is up to the Incubator PMC where it ultimately ends up.
Regards,
Alan
> It's an independent project, and
> once it became a ASF project it will conceptually get Geronimo PMC
> support and thus become an subproject of Apache Geronimo. That's the
> only linkage between them. Technical stuff is and will be discussed
> within a OpenEJB community and it's up to it to decide what steps are
> to be taken - be more focus on Geronimo or EJB 3 spec itself with no
> strings attached (to Geronimo).
>
> (Strange, I wonder whether I've already voted for it).
>
> Jacek
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/2/06, Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from Geronimo, as
> to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
It is and it will end up as such. It's an independent project, and
once it became a ASF project it will conceptually get Geronimo PMC
support and thus become an subproject of Apache Geronimo. That's the
only linkage between them. Technical stuff is and will be discussed
within a OpenEJB community and it's up to it to decide what steps are
to be taken - be more focus on Geronimo or EJB 3 spec itself with no
strings attached (to Geronimo).
(Strange, I wonder whether I've already voted for it).
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
[ATTENTION] Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Everyone, please note that Mohammed is responding to an email from
December 3, 2005. The vote is *over*.
Here is that thread for reference: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?
t=113359335700001&r=1&w=2
If there are questions on the status of OpenEJB's move to the
incubator, the following thread would be an excellent place to post
them.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openejb.devel/3228/focus=3228
Thanks,
David
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
> separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent
> from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>
>
> On 12/3/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote: The
> OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> during incubation
>
> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>
> +1 from me
>
> --
> David
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Mohammed Nour <no...@gmail.com>.
Hi All
Jeremy I agree with, and this current close relation to Geronimo delayed the
development on OpenEJB, specially when the build of Geronimo is not going
well as OpenEJB now required APIs from Geronimo which I don't know why they
don't separate it as a common JEE code which can be used into either
Geronimo or OpenEJB or any other JEE related stuff.
Thanks and best regards...
Mohammad Nour El-Din
On 7/5/06, Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as many
> of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am a big fan
> of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container for Geronimo,
> things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users. For example, a lot
> of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo. Most don't know that OpenEJB is a
> standalone EJB container with more than 7 years under its belt. While this
> is a tragedy this is not the point I am wishing to make so lets continue.
>
> OpenEJB began life a long time ago. When Geronimo came along, things
> took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB. Not only did the mainstream
> development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer and nearly stop
> but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about this feeling of
> neglect. Geronimo took the best developers from OpenEJB to build a better
> version of OpenEJB but it only builds and runs inside of Geronimo. This
> again is a tragedy. I could go on but I need to make a point.
>
> My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many devoted
> developers. It is not tied to Geronimo. The fact that the version within
> Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning problem and should not be
> taken out on the OpenEJB developers. Many of the developers, like myself,
> would love to see the Apache Software Foundation open its doors to a mature
> and well-known EJB container to call its own. The concerns about OpenEJB
> ties to Geronimo should not keep a great product from being sponsored at the
> ASF.
>
> Take care,
>
>
> Jeremy
>
> P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
>
>
>
> On 7/4/06, John Sisson < jrsisson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
> > Geronimo?
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> > Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > > I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> > > separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
> >
> > > always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
> > > is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
> > > strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Alan
> > >
> > > Mohammed Nour wrote:
> > >> Hi All...
> > >>
> > >> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> > >> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> > >> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> > >> <mailto: david.blevins@visi.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> > >> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
> > >>
> > >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> > >>
> > >> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> > >> during incubation
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
> > >> as a
> > >> sub-project of Geronimo
> > >> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> > >> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> > >>
> > >> +1 from me
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> David
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Geronimo and OpenEJB relationship (was Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB
to become sub-project of Geronimo)
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
Sorry for the confusion, I probably should have started a new thread for
this mail as the mail I replied to was a mail I missed from months back
from a vote thread. The vote is actually over ( see dblevins mail at
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg26078.html ).
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as
> many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am
> a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container
> for Geronimo, things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users.
> For example, a lot of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo. Most
> don't know that OpenEJB is a standalone EJB container with more than 7
> years under its belt. While this is a tragedy this is not the point I
> am wishing to make so lets continue.
>
> OpenEJB began life a long time ago. When Geronimo came along,
> things took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB. Not only did the
> mainstream development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer
> and nearly stop but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about
> this feeling of neglect. Geronimo took the best developers from
> OpenEJB to build a better version of OpenEJB but it only builds and
> runs inside of Geronimo. This again is a tragedy. I could go on but
> I need to make a point.
It is my understanding that OpenEJB will be moving back to one
development stream (OpenEJB version 3) that will be used by Geronimo and
OpenEJB standalone, so the future should be much brighter as development
will all be focused in the one stream. Is this correct?
>
> My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many
> devoted developers. It is not tied to Geronimo. The fact that the
> version within Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning
> problem and should not be taken out on the OpenEJB developers. Many
> of the developers, like myself, would love to see the Apache Software
> Foundation open its doors to a mature and well-known EJB container to
> call its own. The concerns about OpenEJB ties to Geronimo should not
> keep a great product from being sponsored at the ASF.
>
Thanks for taking the time to explain what the concerns were, as I
wasn't sure if they were technical or project management concerns. I
look forward to seeing OpenEJB in the incubator.
Regards,
John
> Take care,
>
> Jeremy
>
> P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
>
>
> On 7/4/06, *John Sisson* < jrsisson@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association
> with
> Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> > separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB,
> they are
> > always concerned about its close association w/
> Geronimo. However, it
> > is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling
> OpenEJB's
> > strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > Mohammed Nour wrote:
> >> Hi All...
> >>
> >> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
> separate
> >> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> >> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>
> >> <mailto: david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be
> become a
> >> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> >>
> >> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of
> OpenEJB
> >> during incubation
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during
> incubation
> >> as a
> >> sub-project of Geronimo
> >> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> >> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> >>
> >> +1 from me
> >>
> >> --
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
These seem to be good points to me.
Regards,
Alan
Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
> Hi all,
> I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as
> many of the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am
> a big fan of Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container
> for Geronimo, things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users.
> For example, a lot of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo. Most
> don't know that OpenEJB is a standalone EJB container with more than 7
> years under its belt. While this is a tragedy this is not the point I
> am wishing to make so lets continue.
>
> OpenEJB began life a long time ago. When Geronimo came along,
> things took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB. Not only did the
> mainstream development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer
> and nearly stop but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about
> this feeling of neglect. Geronimo took the best developers from
> OpenEJB to build a better version of OpenEJB but it only builds and
> runs inside of Geronimo. This again is a tragedy. I could go on but
> I need to make a point.
>
> My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many
> devoted developers. It is not tied to Geronimo. The fact that the
> version within Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning
> problem and should not be taken out on the OpenEJB developers. Many
> of the developers, like myself, would love to see the Apache Software
> Foundation open its doors to a mature and well-known EJB container to
> call its own. The concerns about OpenEJB ties to Geronimo should not
> keep a great product from being sponsored at the ASF.
>
> Take care,
>
> Jeremy
>
> P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
>
>
> On 7/4/06, *John Sisson* < jrsisson@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association
> with
> Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> > separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB,
> they are
> > always concerned about its close association w/
> Geronimo. However, it
> > is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling
> OpenEJB's
> > strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > Mohammed Nour wrote:
> >> Hi All...
> >>
> >> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
> separate
> >> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> >> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>
> >> <mailto: david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be
> become a
> >> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> >>
> >> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of
> OpenEJB
> >> during incubation
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during
> incubation
> >> as a
> >> sub-project of Geronimo
> >> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> >> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> >>
> >> +1 from me
> >>
> >> --
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
I am an OpenEJB developer and although I'm not as well known as many of
the others, I have been with the team for about 3 years. I am a big fan of
Geronimo but ever since OpenEJB became the EJB container for Geronimo,
things have been a little less clear for OpenEJB users. For example, a lot
of people only know OpenEJB via Geronimo. Most don't know that OpenEJB is a
standalone EJB container with more than 7 years under its belt. While this
is a tragedy this is not the point I am wishing to make so lets continue.
OpenEJB began life a long time ago. When Geronimo came along, things
took a turn for the worst for OpenEJB. Not only did the mainstream
development of the non-Geronimo version of OpenEJB suffer and nearly stop
but the users of OpenEJB also began to backlash about this feeling of
neglect. Geronimo took the best developers from OpenEJB to build a better
version of OpenEJB but it only builds and runs inside of Geronimo. This
again is a tragedy. I could go on but I need to make a point.
My point is that OpenEJB is a mature EJB container with many devoted
developers. It is not tied to Geronimo. The fact that the version within
Geronimo is pretty Geronimo-specific is a planning problem and should not be
taken out on the OpenEJB developers. Many of the developers, like myself,
would love to see the Apache Software Foundation open its doors to a mature
and well-known EJB container to call its own. The concerns about OpenEJB
ties to Geronimo should not keep a great product from being sponsored at the
ASF.
Take care,
Jeremy
P.S. - I'm a +1 on this if my vote isn't seen as biased. ;)
On 7/4/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
> Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> > separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
> > always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
> > is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
> > strong reliance on Geronimo code.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > Mohammed Nour wrote:
> >> Hi All...
> >>
> >> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> >> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> >> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> >> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> >> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
> >>
> >> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> >> during incubation
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
> >> as a
> >> sub-project of Geronimo
> >> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> >> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
> >>
> >> +1 from me
> >>
> >> --
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Nothing with the actual association itself. Die hard OpenEJB fans want
to use OpenEJB w/out the usual Geronimo accoutrements. As I mentioned
below, Dain is working on this.
Regards,
Alan
John Sisson wrote:
> Alan,
>
> What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association
> with Geronimo?
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
>> separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they
>> are always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo.
>> However, it is my understanding that Dain is working hard on
>> decoupling OpenEJB's strong reliance on Geronimo code.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Mohammed Nour wrote:
>>> Hi All...
>>>
>>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
>>> separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent
>>> from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
>>> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>>
>>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
>>> during incubation
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
>>> as a
>>> sub-project of Geronimo
>>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>>
>>> +1 from me
>>>
>>> --
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
Alan,
What type of concerns do they have regarding its close association with
Geronimo?
Regards,
John
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
> always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
> is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
> strong reliance on Geronimo code.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Mohammed Nour wrote:
>> Hi All...
>>
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
>> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
>> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>>
>>
>> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
>> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>
>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
>> during incubation
>>
>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
>> as a
>> sub-project of Geronimo
>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>
>> +1 from me
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
It should be more than possible to have a decoupled OpenEJB codebase
that plugs into Geronimo while at the same time have these projects
exists in the same community.
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
> separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they
> are always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo.
> However, it is my understanding that Dain is working hard on
> decoupling OpenEJB's strong reliance on Geronimo code.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Mohammed Nour wrote:
>> Hi All...
>>
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
>> separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent
>> from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>>
>>
>> On 12/3/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>
>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
>> during incubation
>>
>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
>> sub-project of Geronimo
>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>
>> +1 from me
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I also am leaning towards the idea that it's good for OpenEJB to be
separate from Geronimo. Whenever I talk w/ users of OpenEJB, they are
always concerned about its close association w/ Geronimo. However, it
is my understanding that Dain is working hard on decoupling OpenEJB's
strong reliance on Geronimo code.
Regards,
Alan
Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>
>
> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
>
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> during incubation
>
> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>
> +1 from me
>
> --
> David
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:49 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB
> separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at
> odds w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?
Sorry... my +1 is for the proposal.
I've snipped out any confusing bits below...
--jason
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geronimo developers, so it
>> really makes sense to bring these two codebases together.
>>
>> I don't see any problem with OpenEJB coming together with Geronimo
>> regarding to allow others to use the OpenEJB core w/o the rest of
>> Geronimo. I believe that one of the key drives within Geronimo is
>> to make it highly flexible and pluggable. Many components are
>> already in use by other projects (and OpenEJB) itself) with out
>> requiring the entire server.
>>
>> There merger of these two groups will almost certainly result in a
>> more functional OpenEJB, which means a more functional Geronimo.
>>> On 12/3/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>>
>>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
>>> during incubation
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
>>> as a
>>> sub-project of Geronimo
>>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>>
>>> +1 from me
>>>
>>> --
>>> David
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Jason, IIUC, Mohammed is asking if it is not better to have OpenEJB
separate from Geronimo, not together. Your plus one seems to be at odds
w/ your subsequent statements. Am I misunderstanding something?
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> +1
>
> Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geronimo developers, so it really
> makes sense to bring these two codebases together.
>
> I don't see any problem with OpenEJB coming together with
> Geronimo regarding to allow others to use the OpenEJB core w/o the
> rest of Geronimo. I believe that one of the key drives within
> Geronimo is to make it highly flexible and pluggable. Many components
> are already in use by other projects (and OpenEJB) itself) with out
> requiring the entire server.
>
> There merger of these two groups will almost certainly result in a
> more functional OpenEJB, which means a more functional Geronimo.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
>
>> Hi All...
>>
>> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a separate
>> project, as we have the intention to make it independent from
>> Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>>
>>
>> On 12/3/05, *David Blevins* <david.blevins@visi.com
>> <ma...@visi.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
>> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>>
>> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
>> during incubation
>>
>> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation
>> as a
>> sub-project of Geronimo
>> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
>> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>>
>> +1 from me
>>
>> --
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Sponsor OpenEJB to become sub-project of Geronimo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
+1
Most of the OpenEJB developers are Geronimo developers, so it really
makes sense to bring these two codebases together.
I don't see any problem with OpenEJB coming together with Geronimo
regarding to allow others to use the OpenEJB core w/o the rest of
Geronimo. I believe that one of the key drives within Geronimo is to
make it highly flexible and pluggable. Many components are already
in use by other projects (and OpenEJB) itself) with out requiring the
entire server.
There merger of these two groups will almost certainly result in a
more functional OpenEJB, which means a more functional Geronimo.
--jason
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Mohammed Nour wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> +1, but I have a question. Isn't it better to have OEJB as a
> separate project, as we have the intention to make it independent
> from Geronimo, as to have it work inside or outside Geronimo?
>
>
> On 12/3/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> The OpenEJB committers have discussed it and voted to be become a
> Geronimo sub-project. The incubator proposl is here:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenEjbProposal
>
> Please vote if you'd like Geronimo to be the sponsor of OpenEJB
> during incubation
>
> [ ] +1 = I support the move to sponsor OpenEJB during incubation as a
> sub-project of Geronimo
> [ ] +0 = I don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 = I don't support this move because: _______________
>
> +1 from me
>
> --
> David
>
>
>