You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org> on 2004/04/20 13:08:24 UTC
[proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Dear Avalon PMC,
we all know avalon has seen some rough times lately. In an attempt to
end this, the new direction for avalon is towards a single, unified
platform that will be based on the new container, avalon-merlin. It is
well-understood that the Avalon PMC and a substantial part of the avalon
community considers this the best choice for avalon, and we wish to
respect that choice.
However, concerns have risen over the legacy of the older avalon
products, in particular avalon-fortress, avalon-ecm, and their
respective dependencies. We wish to ensure the continued vitality,
stability and availability of these products. There are many commercial
and non-commercial efforts based around these products, and the new
unified platform offers uncertainties and risk we are not prepared to
accept.
There has been discussion about, and invitations, to make that work
within the scope of the avalon project itself, perhaps by partitioning
the project into distinct subprojects, splitting avalon up into multiple
new projects, or taking similar measures.
After many weeks of deliberation, we can only come to the conclusion
that this is a way forward that is bound to fail. As has been shown over
the last two years, avalon is not a project where such a setup can ever
work productively. We feat that by going down this path, avalon as a
community will suffer. This will negatively impact apache and all of
avalon's users. We believe there's a better alternative.
We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us. We will endeavor to create a
stable, solid, backwards- and forwards-compatible open source project
where these containers and their community can prosper under the terms
of the Apache License in peaceful co-existence with the avalon project.
We will briefly explain what we mean with "maintenance transfer": our
suggestion is that the avalon project ceases development of these
codebases, and transfers them to us, intact. The transfer should include
branding (the "fortress" and "ecm" names) and package structure (the
"org.apache.avalon.fortress" package and parts of the
"org.apache.excalibur" and "org.apache.avalon.excalibur" packages). We
believe such an integral transfer is the only way to ensure a continued
smooth user experience.
Without getting into further details as to what such a transfer would
entail right away or how it should be executed, we would like to give
you and the rest of the avalon community the opportunity to consider the
pros and cons of this move, for apache, for avalon, and for our users,
and then let us know if you're willing to co-operate with us on this
issue to the ultimate benefit of all parties involved.
sincerely,
Sasvata Chatterjee
Peter Donald
Berin Loritsch
Leif Mortenson
Michael Nash
Peter Royal
Leo Simons
Mauro Talevi
Carsten Ziegeler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Timothy Bennett <ex...@comcast.net>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> However, concerns have risen over the legacy of the older avalon
> products, in particular avalon-fortress, avalon-ecm, and their
> respective dependencies. We wish to ensure the continued vitality,
> stability and availability of these products. There are many commercial
> and non-commercial efforts based around these products, and the new
> unified platform offers uncertainties and risk we are not prepared to
> accept.
>
As I expressed during our big ICQ pow-wow, I believe continued support
of any product's client base is of utmost importance. And in the case
of Fortress/ECM, I, too, want what is best for users of these products.
> There has been discussion about, and invitations, to make that work
> within the scope of the avalon project itself, perhaps by partitioning
> the project into distinct subprojects, splitting avalon up into multiple
> new projects, or taking similar measures.
>
Like Hammett and Aaron and others, my preference is for the continued
evolution/maintenance of these products to continue somehow under the
Apache umbrella.
> After many weeks of deliberation, we can only come to the conclusion
> that this is a way forward that is bound to fail. As has been shown over
> the last two years, avalon is not a project where such a setup can ever
> work productively. We feat that by going down this path, avalon as a
> community will suffer. This will negatively impact apache and all of
> avalon's users. We believe there's a better alternative.
>
> We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
> avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us. We will endeavor to create a
> stable, solid, backwards- and forwards-compatible open source project
> where these containers and their community can prosper under the terms
> of the Apache License in peaceful co-existence with the avalon project.
>
I am also prepared to accept the fact that best thing for Fortress/ECM
users and the healthy progression of Apache-Avalon is a transfer of the
codebase eternal to Apache.
> Without getting into further details as to what such a transfer would
> entail right away or how it should be executed, we would like to give
> you and the rest of the avalon community the opportunity to consider the
> pros and cons of this move, for apache, for avalon, and for our users,
> and then let us know if you're willing to co-operate with us on this
> issue to the ultimate benefit of all parties involved.
>
+1 from me given the items of interest addressed by you and Aaron in
other posts in this thread.
> Sasvata Chatterjee
> Peter Donald
> Berin Loritsch
> Leif Mortenson
> Michael Nash
> Peter Royal
> Leo Simons
> Mauro Talevi
> Carsten Ziegeler
I also would like to add that I too believe that it is an important
action item of the Apache-Avalon group to provide a *straightforward*
and *painless* migration path for Fortress/ECM users to the Merlin
platform for those subset of users who desire to remain under the Apache
umbrella. And the implementation of a Fortress facility for Merlin is
reasonable vehicle for short-term migration. And while it certainly is
of no direct concern or interest for the BOP, my hope is that some of
the Fortress/ECM experts would find this work interesting and
compelling. It would certainly go a long way towards maintaining a
spirit of cooperation amongst the camps.
I also hope that some/all of the BOP will continue to be a part of the
*stackable* component-container specification ideas that Niclas is
spearheading, and that as these specifications are fleshed out, we can
see a bright new day of interoperability first among the Avalon
container siblings, and then branching out throughout the IoC community.
If we (Avalon + BOP) can at least rally around Niclas' specification
ideas, it is possible for us to establish a model of cooperation that
might be contagious through the rest of the community. I hope that not
only interest from Avalon and the BOP still exists in this domain (apart
from the pragmatic maintenance of an existing product), but that real
action will result from mere intellectual interest.
Cheers,
Timothy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Andreas Oberhack <de...@softwarefabrik.biz>.
>
> that's only part of the proposal. We want to set up a truly seperate
> open source project. There will be all the usual things associated
with
> an independent project -- mailing lists, website, issue tracker,
> committer base, development roadmap, etc.
But in your proposal it isn't and won't be a truly independent /
separate open source project. It will keep the branding and all the rest
of the "history".
So I think you could either stay under the Apache Avalon umbrella and
use all the infrastructure, branding etc. or really have a new branding,
infrastructure and so on.
Personally I would like you to stay under the Apache Avalon umbrella -
but this just my personal thought.
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Andreas Oberhack wrote:
> I'm just trying to get the point: The only thing you want to change is
> to put the source elsewhere?
that's only part of the proposal. We want to set up a truly seperate
open source project. There will be all the usual things associated with
an independent project -- mailing lists, website, issue tracker,
committer base, development roadmap, etc.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
> > Will we have commit privileges if those currently participating in
> Avalon
> > want to continue working on it?
>
> yes.
Groovy, I'm cool with it then.
> The goal is an open source project run according to principles like
> consensus, merit, pragmatism, etc, ie
>
> "a collaborative, consensus based development process, an open and
> pragmatic software license, and a desire to create high quality
> software" (quote from www.apache.org)
>
> still applies.
That's all that matters. I'm not looking to be a big boss man -
just a humble contributor from time to time.
Alex
P.S. What are you doing with Avalon components in Pico - you've Pico'd my
interest?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Will we have commit privileges if those currently participating in Avalon
> want to continue working on it?
yes.
There might be a few conditionals to that answer, though. For example,
the decision-making process might turn out to be a little different from
that followed here at avalon, so "commit priviledges" could turn out to
have a subtly different meaning. But our intention is certainly not to
deny people the ability to work on these projects.
The goal is an open source project run according to principles like
consensus, merit, pragmatism, etc, ie
"a collaborative, consensus based development process, an open and
pragmatic software license, and a desire to create high quality
software" (quote from www.apache.org)
still applies.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Oberhack [mailto:develop@softwarefabrik.biz]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:10 PM
> To: 'Avalon Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> > Yes. The only thing we need legally to proceed, is permission that we
> > can use the Fortress and ECM names. Or at least, that is our
> impression
> > (we are not laywers :-D), which we would like to see confirmed. In
> > addition, we are also specifically looking for confirmation that we
> can
> > keep package names intact after a transfer.
>
> I'm just trying to get the point: The only thing you want to change is
> to put the source elsewhere?
Will we have commit privileges if those currently participating in Avalon
want to continue working on it?
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Andreas Oberhack <de...@softwarefabrik.biz>.
Hi Leo,
> Yes. The only thing we need legally to proceed, is permission that we
> can use the Fortress and ECM names. Or at least, that is our
impression
> (we are not laywers :-D), which we would like to see confirmed. In
> addition, we are also specifically looking for confirmation that we
can
> keep package names intact after a transfer.
I'm just trying to get the point: The only thing you want to change is
to put the source elsewhere?
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> Quoting Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>:
>
>>J Aaron Farr wrote:
>>
>>>3. Are you proposing transfering the copyright ownership?
>>
>>No. We do not think that a copyright transfer is needed, nor a good idea
>>to pursue. It is our understanding that the terms of the AL 2.0 do not
>>require any transfer of copright in order to achieve our goals.
>
> Then the only thing you are really asking of the Avalon project are:
>
> 1. Use of the names Fortress and Excalibur
> 2. Agreement to freeze development of this code in Avalon
> (ie- defer development to this new fork)
Yes. The only thing we need legally to proceed, is permission that we
can use the Fortress and ECM names. Or at least, that is our impression
(we are not laywers :-D), which we would like to see confirmed. In
addition, we are also specifically looking for confirmation that we can
keep package names intact after a transfer.
But what we're mostly looking for are insights, opinions, suggestions,
goodwill, and similar things not as easily expressed using a short
numbered list.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Quoting Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>:
> J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> > 3. Are you proposing transfering the copyright ownership?
>
> No. We do not think that a copyright transfer is needed, nor a good idea
> to pursue. It is our understanding that the terms of the AL 2.0 do not
> require any transfer of copright in order to achieve our goals.
Then the only thing you are really asking of the Avalon project are:
1. Use of the names Fortress and Excalibur
2. Agreement to freeze development of this code in Avalon
(ie- defer development to this new fork)
---
jaaron <http://jadetower.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
J Aaron Farr wrote:
> Some requirements and questions which I can think of off the top of my head:
thank you for the quick reply and this list of requirements. It would
probably be beneficial if you and others could expand on them further,
so we can come up with a detailed plan together.
> 1. The code should remain licensed under the ASL 2.0.
agreed.
> If you are planning on
> relicensing the code, then copies of the current releases would need to remain
> available from Avalon under the ASL.
we will not relicense the code. The code will remain licensed under the
AL 2.0.
> 2. At best, branding would would be limited to Fortress, ECM and Excalibur and
> not included general use of Avalon and Apache.
agreed. We need to avoid all confusion of users, developers, and lawyers
on this subject. The primary concern here is making sure that everyone
understands where to get what version of which software, and we believe
that this can only be ensured if the Fortress and ECM names are
transferred along with the project.
> Under your proposal, the project
> would not be under the ASF umbrella and thus could not use the ASF marks.
of course.
> However, there is the possibility of listing this project as a 'sister' project
> to Avalon, similar to the PHP Group's relationship with the ASF.
That sounds like a good idea.
> 3. Are you proposing transfering the copyright ownership?
No. We do not think that a copyright transfer is needed, nor a good idea
to pursue. It is our understanding that the terms of the AL 2.0 do not
require any transfer of copright in order to achieve our goals.
> 4. Do you have the infrastructure in place to support this development? If so,
> what and where should be noted.
No, we do not have any infrastructure in place yet, but we expect all
needed infrastructure to be in place in time long before any product
transfer ensues. Like I wrote in response to Niclas' message, our plan
is to ask the Codehaus to provide us with the neccessary infrastructure,
and we have been assured that such can be arranged quickly once the
decision is made.
> Also, be aware that we still have a few developers who never filed CLA's. From
> the best that I can tell, this affects the old Phoenix codebase more than
> Fortress or Excalibur; however, if a copyright transfer were to take place we
> would need to ensure that the ASF has all the appropriate legal rights to do so.
Since we do not think a copyright transfer is needed or a good idea, I
do not think this is an issue.
> While I would have rather seen development remain in Avalon, I am not opposed to
> this option. However, I want to hear the voice of the PMC and the community on
> the matter, see a much more detailed proposal, and then I would also need to
> take the issue before the ASF board.
Of course. I think we understand each other :-D
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by J Aaron Farr <fa...@apache.org>.
Hello Leo.
The proposal is not very different from some of the options which have been
discussed. Of course, the devil is in the details.
Some requirements and questions which I can think of off the top of my head:
1. The code should remain licensed under the ASL 2.0. If you are planning on
relicensing the code, then copies of the current releases would need to remain
available from Avalon under the ASL.
2. At best, branding would would be limited to Fortress, ECM and Excalibur and
not included general use of Avalon and Apache. Under your proposal, the project
would not be under the ASF umbrella and thus could not use the ASF marks.
However, there is the possibility of listing this project as a 'sister' project
to Avalon, similar to the PHP Group's relationship with the ASF.
3. Are you proposing transfering the copyright ownership?
4. Do you have the infrastructure in place to support this development? If so,
what and where should be noted.
Also, be aware that we still have a few developers who never filed CLA's. From
the best that I can tell, this affects the old Phoenix codebase more than
Fortress or Excalibur; however, if a copyright transfer were to take place we
would need to ensure that the ASF has all the appropriate legal rights to do so.
While I would have rather seen development remain in Avalon, I am not opposed to
this option. However, I want to hear the voice of the PMC and the community on
the matter, see a much more detailed proposal, and then I would also need to
take the issue before the ASF board.
---
jaaron <http://jadetower.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>What if that person and his friends choose to bring all
>>their enthusiasm and energy to a new fortress top-level-project?
>>What if they expect to be able to change Avalon-Framework, and
>>find that some of the developers of that framework are not even
>>on speaking terms with some of the fortress people?
>
> we MUST address your concern above
hum. Good point. I'll just keep my mouth shut for a while as various
people dwell on how to do that. Do be careful to not spend months on
this and in the end just generate more negative energy than its worth...
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Wednesday 21 April 2004 15:35, Leo Simons wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > Also note that moving the code to Codehaus means that it cannot use the
> > org.apache namespace. Forking the code is fine, but non-ASF code cannot
> > use our namespace
>
> Can you explain why not?
I doubt that Greg is subscribed to the dev@avalon.apache.org mailing list, and
he won't receive this elaboration. I suggest that you forward to some list
that he is, or him directly. :o)
Niclas
--
+---------//-------------------+
| http://www.bali.ac |
| http://niclas.hedhman.org |
+------//----------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Leo,
> What if that person and his friends choose to bring all
> their enthusiasm and energy to a new fortress top-level-project?
> What if they expect to be able to change Avalon-Framework, and
> find that some of the developers of that framework are not even
> on speaking terms with some of the fortress people?
If there is to be any hope of having any degree of compatibility, then this
issue must be addressed. Otherwise, just take the code, fork it, change its
name, and do whatever you want with it but it cannot be Avalon if we give up
on some concept of what that means. Peter Royal and I were just discussing
this issue on the PMC list in response to yet another posting there on this
topic.
I just posted my consent for Peter to post our discussion on that private
list to this public one. Basically, though, there appears to be an
agreement and a desire to have a defined set of contracts, which does mean
that wherever the containers would be hosted, we MUST address your concern
above (which is not just your concern, but also shared by others).
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:51:37AM +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>OK - given the qualification of intent based on the posts to this thread
>>it seems to me that the PMC is being presented with a choice:
>>
>> 1. Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus
>> 2. Keep it here at Apache
>
> You didn't break this one down into:
>
> 2a. Keep it here at Apache Avalon
> 2b. Keep it at Apache, but as part of another project
>
> I think the outcomes of those two sub-options are very different, and need
> to be examined independently (rather than as one hunk in your response).
Before writing our proposal, we did consider option 2b in detail (and
2a, and many others). As a group, we had mixed feelings on what the
direction should be, but the direction indicated in our letter in the
end received consensus.
As for the background rationale, I can only speak for myself there. I'll
try to be both direct and respectful here, but this is a difficult topic
that has to do with ideals, opinions, and personality, so please "add
some salt" if you need to. Once again, this is just me talking, and
certainly not the whole "BOP", even though some of what I say may
resonate with the feelings of some BOPpers.
Avalon has been "somewhat" of a controversial project here at the ASF. I
really don't feel like bringing up old memories on the many, many months
of controversy and discussion (or spend more months discussing those
things). Our mutual goal is to put all that behind us once and for all.
Avalon needs to survive as a healthy ASF project. Moreover, the ASF
needs to take steps to ensure not only Avalon, but the range of wider
projects related to Avalon prosper too.
I fear that, by letting Fortress and ECM stay at the ASF, we will be
less successful at achieving those things.
Let me give an example. Someone will say "hey, I've got this cool new
IoC-aware microkernel idea. Can we put it in jakarta-commons?". There
will be some flurry of enthusiasm, and the person will more often than
not be gently directed to one of the half-dozen java-based framework
projects we have. What if that person and his friends choose to bring
all their enthusiasm and energy to a new fortress top-level-project?
What if they expect to be able to change Avalon-Framework, and find that
some of the developers of that framework are not even on speaking terms
with some of the fortress people? What if discussion ensues that "merlin
should be more like fortress because this feature X just sucks"?
You see a lot of "what-if"s there. Those are always difficult. The
appropriate and natural answer to questions like that is "we're a happy
bunch of people here and we can resolve things like that in a
respectful, productive and mutually satisfactory way". There is supposed
to be this positive feedback loop between people and projects in open
source that is a whole lot of fun to be a part of. Over the course of
approximately the last two years, I've slowly been convinced that this
does not apply to avalon, at least not to me and avalon.
There is, community-wise, a complex legacy here. Keeping this codebase
at the ASF as a new project will keep around that legacy, and I
personally dread all the communication overhead ("when the shit hits the
fan", "with my asbesto suit on") that I know I will put in from the
feeling of responsibility towards the ASF to make such a new project a
success. I have run around with similar negative feelings for the better
part of two years (those people around here that know me a little will
know I have a "thin skin"), to the point of desparation.
I have tried this path path (option 2 and its permutations) a few times
too often, and as much as it saddens me, it really no longer is an
option for me personally, sorry.
I will point out again that there are several BOP people who do not
share these feelings, and are amendable to the idea of avalon splitting
up into multiple projects. By all means, consider the option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Also note that moving the code to Codehaus means that it cannot use the
> org.apache namespace. Forking the code is fine, but non-ASF code cannot
> use our namespace
Can you explain why not?
> (or more precisely, it *can* since we certainly can't
> control it, but we'd be extremely and vocally peeved about it :-).
Why would anyone be peeved?
When it comes to java software, this comes down to saying "no non-ASF
project is allowed to be binary compatible with an ASF project or at
least we'd "be extremely and vocally peeved about it".
Perhaps an analogy will work. For example, consider forking Apache
HTTPD. To make my forked webserver a viable replacement, it had better
come with a configuration file named
/etc/apache/conf/httpd.conf
and the command
apachectl graceful
had better work.
This example, is, of course, not completely fictional. Apache-SSL has
peacefully (as far as I know, at least?) existed side by side with
Apache-HTTPD for years now, and even uses the apache name (obviously)
and marks (the feather). Why is there no issue there, but an issue here?
We're not asking for anything like that. We explicitly do not want to
use the apache name or the avalon name for anything else than providing
binary compatibility. I can't see how this makes anyone extremely peeved.
Another analogy closer to home might be the javax.* namespace. The ASF
distributes and is allowed to distribute several packages in the javax
namespace, even with java being a trademark of Sun that it needs to
aggressively protect. I'll assume that at least part of the reason to
allow this is to allow the ASF to provide binary compatibility with
sun-provided packages. And I'll assert that making this allowance is in
the best interests of Sun.
I understand that Avalon and the ASF need to protect their name and
interests. But I sincerely believe that, in this case, our proposal is
in the best interests of avalon and the wider apache community.
Finally, rest assured that we will not use the org.apache namespace if
the ASF really does not wish it. We're not trying to get anyone all
vocally peeved about anything.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Greg,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:29 PM
> To: Private PMC mailing list for Avalon; Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:51:37AM +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >
> > OK - given the qualification of intent based on the posts to this thread
> > it seems to me that the PMC is being presented with a choice:
> >
> > 1. Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus
> > 2. Keep it here at Apache
<snip/>
> Also note that moving the code to Codehaus means that it cannot use the
> org.apache namespace. Forking the code is fine, but non-ASF code cannot
> use our namespace (or more precisely, it *can* since we certainly can't
> control it, but we'd be extremely and vocally peeved about it :-).
I figured the namespace thing would eventually be a valid concern in
which case users would have to make code changes to swap the package
names. This would be the only divergence from the original proposal
by Leo Simons. Users would be affected but nominally when switching
codebases.
This does make "Move" in opt #1 clearly mean "Fork" especially when
according to Aaron's emails, "regardless of the outcome of this
proposal Avalon will still make available previous releases in
source and binary form." And so:
To fork or not to fork that is the question! But in doing so respect
the interests of the ASF. Whether tis nobler in Avalon to suffer the
slings and arrows of outrageous codebases or to take arms against a
sea of troubles and by opposing end them. To fork: to move;
No more; and by a fork to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand
natural email trails nagoya is heir to. 'Tis a community devoutly to be
wish'd ....
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:51:37AM +0200, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> OK - given the qualification of intent based on the posts to this thread
> it seems to me that the PMC is being presented with a choice:
>
> 1. Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus
> 2. Keep it here at Apache
You didn't break this one down into:
2a. Keep it here at Apache Avalon
2b. Keep it at Apache, but as part of another project
I think the outcomes of those two sub-options are very different, and need
to be examined independently (rather than as one hunk in your response).
Also note that moving the code to Codehaus means that it cannot use the
org.apache namespace. Forking the code is fine, but non-ASF code cannot
use our namespace (or more precisely, it *can* since we certainly can't
control it, but we'd be extremely and vocally peeved about it :-).
Cheers,
-g
--
gstein@apache.org ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
<snip/>
> Just do it.
>
> Potential benefits to users interested in migrating can be enabled by
> expanding merlin feature set (e.g. finder facility, etc.). Potential
> risk of on-going noise IMO overrides the risk to users of being stranded
> - simply because we can deliver equivalent functionality (its already
> real close). But one proviso - no formal endorsement - go ahead and do
> it - no need for permission
are you saying that there is no need for permission to use the package
names and product names referred to in the message that started this
thread? Is that a position of the Avalon PMC? Greg Stein's message in
this thread seems to indicate something entirely different. This is
confusing :-D
> - but in the meantime Avalon maintains a
> release here independently of your initiative. If your initiative is
> good - then fine and dandy - if not, Avalon provides the fall back
> solution.
that sounds like a workable plan. I would add that in the longer term --
once this initiative has proven thrustworthy -- avalon could opt to stop
maintainance of a fortress release and focus completely on the merlin
platform.
<snip/>
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
OK - given the qualification of intent based on the posts to this thread
it seems to me that the PMC is being presented with a choice:
1. Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus
2. Keep it here at Apache
So - looking at the alternatives in front of us.
Move Fortress/ECM to Codehaus
-----------------------------
benefits - user's of ECM/Fortress style components get
potential viable option for continuation of
development; Avalon dev team can get back to
our core interests
disadvantages - probability of delivery of a binary
compatibility adapter fast approaches zero but
this can be offset by providing equivalent
functionality; user priority in an Apache
maintained solution is out the window
risks - basically this comes down to predicting if
an initiative will retain interest or if it
fades away - if it fades away the user's
are caught between a rock and a hard place
Keep it here at Apache
----------------------
benefits - binary migration will happen, existing
users of ECM/Fortress semantics will be assured
of a codebase that will be maintained under the
Apache umbrella
disadvantages - development will be discontinued outside of
of initiative related to migration; a fork will
probably occur; stuff will continue to surface
that distracts the avalon dev community; support
overhead for ECM/Fortress content may be an
issue relative to the community interests
risks - a fork happens, conflicts arise, community gets
draw into politics as opposed to technics
Summary
-------
Just do it.
Potential benefits to users interested in migrating can be enabled by
expanding merlin feature set (e.g. finder facility, etc.). Potential
risk of on-going noise IMO overrides the risk to users of being stranded
- simply because we can deliver equivalent functionality (its already
real close). But one proviso - no formal endorsement - go ahead and do
it - no need for permission - but in the meantime Avalon maintains a
release here independently of your initiative. If your initiative is
good - then fine and dandy - if not, Avalon provides the fall back solution.
I.e. don't ask the Avalon PMC to endorse good intentions. Instead -
demonstrate to the user community and the Avalon PMC your ability to
provide appropriate maintenance and support. In the meantime the Avalon
dev community can move forward with a programme that addressed
ECM/Fortress functional requirements for the user community that want to
leverage an Apache solution.
Cheers, Stephen.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Dear Avalon PMC,
>
>
> we all know avalon has seen some rough times lately. In an attempt to
> end this, the new direction for avalon is towards a single, unified
> platform that will be based on the new container, avalon-merlin. It is
> well-understood that the Avalon PMC and a substantial part of the avalon
> community considers this the best choice for avalon, and we wish to
> respect that choice.
>
> However, concerns have risen over the legacy of the older avalon
> products, in particular avalon-fortress, avalon-ecm, and their
> respective dependencies. We wish to ensure the continued vitality,
> stability and availability of these products. There are many commercial
> and non-commercial efforts based around these products, and the new
> unified platform offers uncertainties and risk we are not prepared to
> accept.
>
> There has been discussion about, and invitations, to make that work
> within the scope of the avalon project itself, perhaps by partitioning
> the project into distinct subprojects, splitting avalon up into multiple
> new projects, or taking similar measures.
>
> After many weeks of deliberation, we can only come to the conclusion
> that this is a way forward that is bound to fail. As has been shown over
> the last two years, avalon is not a project where such a setup can ever
> work productively. We feat that by going down this path, avalon as a
> community will suffer. This will negatively impact apache and all of
> avalon's users. We believe there's a better alternative.
>
> We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
> avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us. We will endeavor to create a
> stable, solid, backwards- and forwards-compatible open source project
> where these containers and their community can prosper under the terms
> of the Apache License in peaceful co-existence with the avalon project.
>
> We will briefly explain what we mean with "maintenance transfer": our
> suggestion is that the avalon project ceases development of these
> codebases, and transfers them to us, intact. The transfer should include
> branding (the "fortress" and "ecm" names) and package structure (the
> "org.apache.avalon.fortress" package and parts of the
> "org.apache.excalibur" and "org.apache.avalon.excalibur" packages). We
> believe such an integral transfer is the only way to ensure a continued
> smooth user experience.
>
> Without getting into further details as to what such a transfer would
> entail right away or how it should be executed, we would like to give
> you and the rest of the avalon community the opportunity to consider the
> pros and cons of this move, for apache, for avalon, and for our users,
> and then let us know if you're willing to co-operate with us on this
> issue to the ultimate benefit of all parties involved.
>
>
> sincerely,
>
>
> Sasvata Chatterjee
> Peter Donald
> Berin Loritsch
> Leif Mortenson
> Michael Nash
> Peter Royal
> Leo Simons
> Mauro Talevi
> Carsten Ziegeler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 April 2004 19:08, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>>We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
>>avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us.
>
> "over to us" is pretty vague, and I (probably the whole PMC as well except
> PRoyal) would like to know where the new home would be?
while this is open for discussion, our intention is to create a new home
for these codebases as a new, independent open source project. The
infrastructure for that project will probably be provided by the
Codehaus (www.codehaus.org), though no arrangement for that have been
made yet, since we thought it would be a good idea to wait for the
outcome of this conversation.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 19:08, Leo Simons wrote:
> Dear Avalon PMC,
I am not PMC anymore :o) but I have a single non-adverse question...
> We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
> avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us.
"over to us" is pretty vague, and I (probably the whole PMC as well except
PRoyal) would like to know where the new home would be?
Cheers
Niclas
--
+---------//-------------------+
| http://www.bali.ac |
| http://niclas.hedhman.org |
+------//----------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Neeme Praks <ne...@apache.org>.
If this "fork" goes through, count me in as a contributor/committer as well.
I have some ideas about modularizing fortress in order to strip out some
and to replace some features / system-components in there...
(so far I've had mainly a major lack of time... but if there is renewed
interest in fortress, as it seems, then I will bring up those subjects)
Leo Simons wrote:
> Dear Avalon PMC,
>
>
> we all know avalon has seen some rough times lately. In an attempt to
> end this, the new direction for avalon is towards a single, unified
> platform that will be based on the new container, avalon-merlin. It is
> well-understood that the Avalon PMC and a substantial part of the
> avalon community considers this the best choice for avalon, and we
> wish to respect that choice.
>
> However, concerns have risen over the legacy of the older avalon
> products, in particular avalon-fortress, avalon-ecm, and their
> respective dependencies. We wish to ensure the continued vitality,
> stability and availability of these products. There are many
> commercial and non-commercial efforts based around these products, and
> the new unified platform offers uncertainties and risk we are not
> prepared to accept.
>
> There has been discussion about, and invitations, to make that work
> within the scope of the avalon project itself, perhaps by partitioning
> the project into distinct subprojects, splitting avalon up into
> multiple new projects, or taking similar measures.
>
> After many weeks of deliberation, we can only come to the conclusion
> that this is a way forward that is bound to fail. As has been shown
> over the last two years, avalon is not a project where such a setup
> can ever work productively. We feat that by going down this path,
> avalon as a community will suffer. This will negatively impact apache
> and all of avalon's users. We believe there's a better alternative.
>
> We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
> avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us. We will endeavor to create
> a stable, solid, backwards- and forwards-compatible open source
> project where these containers and their community can prosper under
> the terms of the Apache License in peaceful co-existence with the
> avalon project.
>
> We will briefly explain what we mean with "maintenance transfer": our
> suggestion is that the avalon project ceases development of these
> codebases, and transfers them to us, intact. The transfer should
> include branding (the "fortress" and "ecm" names) and package
> structure (the "org.apache.avalon.fortress" package and parts of the
> "org.apache.excalibur" and "org.apache.avalon.excalibur" packages). We
> believe such an integral transfer is the only way to ensure a
> continued smooth user experience.
>
> Without getting into further details as to what such a transfer would
> entail right away or how it should be executed, we would like to give
> you and the rest of the avalon community the opportunity to consider
> the pros and cons of this move, for apache, for avalon, and for our
> users, and then let us know if you're willing to co-operate with us on
> this issue to the ultimate benefit of all parties involved.
>
>
> sincerely,
>
>
> Sasvata Chatterjee
> Peter Donald
> Berin Loritsch
> Leif Mortenson
> Michael Nash
> Peter Royal
> Leo Simons
> Mauro Talevi
> Carsten Ziegeler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Leo Simons <ls...@jicarilla.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Before considering the subject of any transfer or endorsement there is
> one item that I consider to be a prerequisite responsibility that Avalon
> has toward it users. This item is the delivery of binary compatibility
> of ECM/Fortress component within the Merlin platform. Would the members
> your representing be willing to assist in getting this in place?
Everyone has their own goals, needs and requirements. The e-mail that I
sent that started this thread just about outlines the extent to which
the goals, needs and requirements of the signees are known to overlap.
So I can only answer your question from my own perspective, and not on
behalf of everyone.
Whilst I share the goal of container interoperability (and
interoperability in a much broader sense than just between
avalon-supporting containers, in fact), I have only so much time and
energy available to contribute towards that goal. That time and energy
is currently directed elsewhere (for example, I've been at work today to
get PicoContainer to be able to run avalon components). I do not have
time nor energy left right now to also take part in the active
development of the merlin platform.
So while I'm more than happy to continue my advisory role with regard to
the merlin platform (answering questions and providing suggestions via
e-mail, ICQ and IRC on phoenix, ECM, and fortress and otherwise sharing
my expertise with regard to IoC and avalon container development), it's
unlikely you'll see me contribute (substantial amounts) of code now or
in the near future.
Again, this is only me talking. Other people will no doubt have a
different answer.
--
cheers,
- Leo Simons
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weblog -- http://leosimons.com/
Component Community -- http://componentplanet.org/
Component Glue -- http://jicarilla.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
people wouldn't obey the rules."
-- Alan Bennett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@d-haven.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Hi Leo:
>
> Before considering the subject of any transfer or endorsement there is
> one item that I consider to be a prerequisite responsibility that Avalon
> has toward it users. This item is the delivery of binary compatibility
> of ECM/Fortress component within the Merlin platform. Would the members
> your representing be willing to assist in getting this in place?
With all due respect, there would be very little reason for us to do so.
How you help your users is what Avalon is about. All we are asking for
is the ability to continue with the Fortress/ECM based projects as they
are. They can be improved as necessary through natural processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: [proposal] transfer of fortress and ecm
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Hi Leo:
Before considering the subject of any transfer or endorsement there is
one item that I consider to be a prerequisite responsibility that Avalon
has toward it users. This item is the delivery of binary compatibility
of ECM/Fortress component within the Merlin platform. Would the members
your representing be willing to assist in getting this in place?
Stephen.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Dear Avalon PMC,
>
>
> we all know avalon has seen some rough times lately. In an attempt to
> end this, the new direction for avalon is towards a single, unified
> platform that will be based on the new container, avalon-merlin. It is
> well-understood that the Avalon PMC and a substantial part of the avalon
> community considers this the best choice for avalon, and we wish to
> respect that choice.
>
> However, concerns have risen over the legacy of the older avalon
> products, in particular avalon-fortress, avalon-ecm, and their
> respective dependencies. We wish to ensure the continued vitality,
> stability and availability of these products. There are many commercial
> and non-commercial efforts based around these products, and the new
> unified platform offers uncertainties and risk we are not prepared to
> accept.
>
> There has been discussion about, and invitations, to make that work
> within the scope of the avalon project itself, perhaps by partitioning
> the project into distinct subprojects, splitting avalon up into multiple
> new projects, or taking similar measures.
>
> After many weeks of deliberation, we can only come to the conclusion
> that this is a way forward that is bound to fail. As has been shown over
> the last two years, avalon is not a project where such a setup can ever
> work productively. We feat that by going down this path, avalon as a
> community will suffer. This will negatively impact apache and all of
> avalon's users. We believe there's a better alternative.
>
> We would like to propose that apache transfers maintenance of
> avalon-fortress and avalon-ecm over to us. We will endeavor to create a
> stable, solid, backwards- and forwards-compatible open source project
> where these containers and their community can prosper under the terms
> of the Apache License in peaceful co-existence with the avalon project.
>
> We will briefly explain what we mean with "maintenance transfer": our
> suggestion is that the avalon project ceases development of these
> codebases, and transfers them to us, intact. The transfer should include
> branding (the "fortress" and "ecm" names) and package structure (the
> "org.apache.avalon.fortress" package and parts of the
> "org.apache.excalibur" and "org.apache.avalon.excalibur" packages). We
> believe such an integral transfer is the only way to ensure a continued
> smooth user experience.
>
> Without getting into further details as to what such a transfer would
> entail right away or how it should be executed, we would like to give
> you and the rest of the avalon community the opportunity to consider the
> pros and cons of this move, for apache, for avalon, and for our users,
> and then let us know if you're willing to co-operate with us on this
> issue to the ultimate benefit of all parties involved.
>
>
> sincerely,
>
>
> Sasvata Chatterjee
> Peter Donald
> Berin Loritsch
> Leif Mortenson
> Michael Nash
> Peter Royal
> Leo Simons
> Mauro Talevi
> Carsten Ziegeler
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
>
>
--
|---------------------------------------|
| Magic by Merlin |
| Production by Avalon |
| |
| http://avalon.apache.org |
|---------------------------------------|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org