You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com> on 2002/05/02 23:33:19 UTC
Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and general
good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community opinion on
something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I like, btw...)
Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
subproject.
Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
with that.)
The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
a working name.
There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
discovery for new users and developers.
Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
(Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
Anyone have any comments?
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, <co...@covalent.net> wrote:
> I only made a comment that I think a larger scope for the project
> would be usefull.
That's been my understanding of it - and I agree with the comment 8-)
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bill Barker wrote:
> +1
> Unless Costin's proposal is to kick it up to the Apache PMC, then all the
I only made a comment that I think a larger scope for the project would
be usefull.
Many jakarta projects are out of scope ( or at least doing many things
that are hardly related with the original scope ).
I bet that the project will expand - from OODB to maybe XML and who knows
what. I'm sure it'll have at least one db connection pool. Taking this
into account from start would be a good idea, and reducing the pressure
on other projects would also be good.
That's up to the commiters - they drafted a proposal that was aproved,
I think it is still possible to resubmit the proposal with a wider
scope, if they want to ( and probably will get the votes ).
Or just keep it the way it is - they already have the project aproved.
Any further discussion from our part is indeed useless - I'm not
a commiter to that project, I didn't make the proposal - I just made
a sugestion to the proposal's author.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Bill Barker <wb...@wilshire.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
> On Thu, 02 May 2002, Geir Magnusson, Jr. <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
>
> > Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope
> > be created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one
> > larger subcommunity.
>
> First of all, I like the idea. But in general I think this should not
> be something we (we as in general@jakarta) should decide but the
> committers of the current (sub(sub))projects that would make up this
> new subproject had to decide.
>
> If the people working on Torque, commons-dbcp or the Avalon database
> stuff (I'm sure I'm missing something) as well as the people of
> Onjectbridge want to create this new subproject, I'll be all for it -
> but it should be their decision IMHO.
>
+1
Unless Costin's proposal is to kick it up to the Apache PMC, then all the
Jakarta PMC has is a straight up/down vote. The scope of the project is up
to the committers on the project, not the PMC. If ${PMC-member} doesn't
like the direction, then they can work to get committer status and change
it. Jakarta isn't managed from the top-down.
If Costin's proposal is to kick it up to the Apache PMC, then that
automatically takes it outside of the scope of general@jakarta. So it is
still a straight up/down vote.
Just my $0.02.
> Stefan
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Martin Poeschl <mp...@marmot.at>.
James Strachan wrote:
> From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org>
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2002, Geir Magnusson, Jr. <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope
>>>be created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one
>>>larger subcommunity.
>>
>>First of all, I like the idea. But in general I think this should not
>>be something we (we as in general@jakarta) should decide but the
>>committers of the current (sub(sub))projects that would make up this
>>new subproject had to decide.
>>
>>If the people working on Torque, commons-dbcp or the Avalon database
>>stuff (I'm sure I'm missing something) as well as the people of
>>Onjectbridge want to create this new subproject, I'll be all for it -
>>but it should be their decision IMHO.
>
>
> +1. I think db.apache.org is a good idea but lets give the OJB folks time to
> settle in first.
>
> Lets bring OJB here, see how well some of the Torque stuff can be moved into
> commons and get shared across both projects. (Geir you can bring poolman to
> commons too if you like). Then let the dust settle a bit and see if the
> communities want to move. While I like the idea of taking the database
> related stuff out of the 'frameworks' (avalon/turbine) and into a
> database-related top level project that can work with other frameworks - its
> maybe a bit early to start db.apache.org.
+1
there are only 2 apache developers on the ojb developer list (Jason van Zyl and me)
i think it would be good to give the other ojb developers some time to see how everything works here .
i think axion-db (http://axion.tigris.org/servlets/ProjectHome) is another candidate for db.apache.org
>
> Who knows, maybe Torque and OJB could merge completely over time then just a
> single top level project at Jakarta would be good too.
i'm not sure if the 2 will merge completely, but i'm sure torque and ojb will share ideas and code
in the near future ;-)
martin
ps: ojb uses maven! ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@yahoo.co.uk>.
From: "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org>
> On Thu, 02 May 2002, Geir Magnusson, Jr. <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
>
> > Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope
> > be created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one
> > larger subcommunity.
>
> First of all, I like the idea. But in general I think this should not
> be something we (we as in general@jakarta) should decide but the
> committers of the current (sub(sub))projects that would make up this
> new subproject had to decide.
>
> If the people working on Torque, commons-dbcp or the Avalon database
> stuff (I'm sure I'm missing something) as well as the people of
> Onjectbridge want to create this new subproject, I'll be all for it -
> but it should be their decision IMHO.
+1. I think db.apache.org is a good idea but lets give the OJB folks time to
settle in first.
Lets bring OJB here, see how well some of the Torque stuff can be moved into
commons and get shared across both projects. (Geir you can bring poolman to
commons too if you like). Then let the dust settle a bit and see if the
communities want to move. While I like the idea of taking the database
related stuff out of the 'frameworks' (avalon/turbine) and into a
database-related top level project that can work with other frameworks - its
maybe a bit early to start db.apache.org.
Who knows, maybe Torque and OJB could merge completely over time then just a
single top level project at Jakarta would be good too.
James
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 2:02 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2002, Geir Magnusson, Jr. <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
>
>> Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope
>> be created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one
>> larger subcommunity.
>
> First of all, I like the idea. But in general I think this should not
> be something we (we as in general@jakarta) should decide but the
> committers of the current (sub(sub))projects that would make up this
> new subproject had to decide.
I keep saying that it's up to the [sub[sub] project committer bases if they
want to join it. We can't/won't/shouldn't ever try to force anything.
But we can help make it happen.
>
> If the people working on Torque, commons-dbcp or the Avalon database
> stuff (I'm sure I'm missing something) as well as the people of
> Onjectbridge want to create this new subproject, I'll be all for it -
> but it should be their decision IMHO.
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 02 May 2002, Geir Magnusson, Jr. <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
> Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope
> be created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one
> larger subcommunity.
First of all, I like the idea. But in general I think this should not
be something we (we as in general@jakarta) should decide but the
committers of the current (sub(sub))projects that would make up this
new subproject had to decide.
If the people working on Torque, commons-dbcp or the Avalon database
stuff (I'm sure I'm missing something) as well as the people of
Onjectbridge want to create this new subproject, I'll be all for it -
but it should be their decision IMHO.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by James Taylor <jt...@4lane.com>.
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 17:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and general
> good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community opinion on
> something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I like, btw...)
Thank god.
> The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> a working name.
> Anyone have any comments?
I like this idea a lot. It would be great to bring together a lot of
these different efforts and look at how they can work together. And you
would finally have an excuse to bring poolman over (yay!).
My only concern (and this is not meant as an objection) is that we be
careful not to dilute/damage the projects we bring into it. OJB is an
extensive and solid product on par with any of Jakarta's top level
projects. A lot of people feel that torque is also of the same scale.
They _can_ coexist, and work is already going on to have them work
together in sensible ways and share code (the Torque query code which is
moving to commons).
I can see them, along with the common code they share, all our
connection pools, and so on existing as a distinct organizational unit,
but the key is co-existing. If we take a 'MERGE MERGE MERGE' attitude it
could cause more harm then good. Merging is sensible sometimes, maybe we
decide it makes sense to have only one or two connection pools rather
than four, but maybe not. There is definitely room for more than one O/R
mapper. But if they can share repetitive components and build community,
that would be exciting!
-- jt
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/2/02 6:09 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> If it means no more daily messages about object relational mapping tools
> on this list...
Right - would keep the list clear for the current important stuff... ;)
> then it has my full blessing! I suggest an effort be
> made to move all the connection pools and all that over there and start
> thinking up some orthogonal organization scheme.
One thing I want to emphasize is that it's totally *voluntary*, and a
developer community in Jakarta should move there only if they want to.
This is in no way designed to be a mandate, but simply an opportunity. If
the developers of Torque want to move there, then they can do so. If they
want to keep it in Turbine, then they can do so. Same with any DBCP, or
parts of Avalon, or....
> The committers there
> should have a little more power to reject lame new OR mapping tools (the
> 90% of them) that show little promise and the standard "HI I'm company X
> can I dump my junk here" should get the response it deserves.
There is no such problem now in Commons. If the committers in DBCommons
want to bring in something else, that's their decision - they have to
support it...
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
If it means no more daily messages about object relational mapping tools
on this list... then it has my full blessing! I suggest an effort be
made to move all the connection pools and all that over there and start
thinking up some orthogonal organization scheme. The committers there
should have a little more power to reject lame new OR mapping tools (the
90% of them) that show little promise and the standard "HI I'm company X
can I dump my junk here" should get the response it deserves.
So thats my opinion.
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 17:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and general
> good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community opinion on
> something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I like, btw...)
>
> Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
> subproject.
>
> Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
> created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
> subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
> with that.)
>
> The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> a working name.
>
> There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
> synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
> discovery for new users and developers.
>
> Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
> (Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
> subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
> 'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
>
> We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
>
> Anyone have any comments?
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr.
> Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
> geirm@adeptra.com
> +1-203-247-1713
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound
Document
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by John McNally <jm...@collab.net>.
I think ojb can do things like map a set of related objects to xml as
well. Its not completely database centered. (I know very little about
ojb, so feel free to dispute that. Just thought I would bring it up in
case those that know better, are tuned out.)
john mcnally
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 15:33, Peter Donald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts etc
>
> A somewhat better idea IMO would be to use OJB + Torque as a trampoline for a
> new top-level project "db.apache.org" (or insert something more snappy if you
> want). So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
> future).
>
> While this new db project is gestating we can cross link it extensively from
> the jakarta website. After they get off the feet we talk to it the same way
> we talk to xml.apache.org ?
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002 07:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and
> > general good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community
> > opinion on something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I
> > like, btw...)
> >
> > Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
> > subproject.
> >
> > Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
> > created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
> > subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
> > with that.)
> >
> > The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> > environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> > a working name.
> >
> > There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
> > synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
> > discovery for new users and developers.
> >
> > Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
> > (Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
> > subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
> > 'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
> >
> > We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
> >
> > Anyone have any comments?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 18:33, Peter Donald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts etc
>
> A somewhat better idea IMO would be to use OJB + Torque as a trampoline for a
> new top-level project "db.apache.org" (or insert something more snappy if you
> want). So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
> future).
>
I think thats a great idea. I've long wanted to see an apache db
project for all thing db related. I'd eventually contribute to it. I'd
like to see a good OODB in opensource backed by apache.
> While this new db project is gestating we can cross link it extensively from
> the jakarta website. After they get off the feet we talk to it the same way
> we talk to xml.apache.org ?
>
haha
> On Fri, 3 May 2002 07:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and
> > general good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community
> > opinion on something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I
> > like, btw...)
> >
> > Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
> > subproject.
> >
> > Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
> > created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
> > subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
> > with that.)
> >
> > The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> > environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> > a working name.
> >
> > There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
> > synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
> > discovery for new users and developers.
> >
> > Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
> > (Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
> > subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
> > 'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
> >
> > We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
> >
> > Anyone have any comments?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound
Document
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
> > The only problem is that yours so far is the only public positive comment
> > so far. I let it stew for a bit and will talk to OJB in the intrim, but if
> > people don't see this as a good idea, then it very could might not be.
well, if you insist, +1 then ;)
As long as there's room for avalon-dependent components, I'll support
it...
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 3 May 2002 20:37, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I have no idea why they want to move here, but to me, being the 'marquee'
> project in a new Apache subproject has incredible upside for a project
> trying to establish 'mindshare' in what seems to be a confusing vertical.
> No doubt, being part of Jakarta is too. But I would bet that in the
> industry "Apache creates new subproject" is going to get a lot more
> attention than "XXX joins Jakarta".
Yep. Basically it gives the OJB guys a LOT more exposure initially and put to
good use this will greatly increase the interest in the project.
> I would be very interested in moving poolman to 'the new thing', as that
> would bring lots of people to take a look, I suspect, as it's also pretty
> well known. Again, this isn't at all about poolman - just throwing it in
> there as a possible supporting resource and to commit myself to
> involvement.
poolman would also be good addition IMO because as you said it has a very
large userbase and that userbase will come to db.apache.org see OJB and may
start using that aswell ;)
> The only problem is that yours so far is the only public positive comment
> so far. I let it stew for a bit and will talk to OJB in the intrim, but if
> people don't see this as a good idea, then it very could might not be.
You never know unless you try. You wanting it and OJB wanting it should be
enough to make it happen. To summarize from last mail
> > Or to put it simply if you want it done and OJB wants it done then it
> > will get done - otherwise it wont, simple as that really.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 6:37 AM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com> wrote:
>>
>> In the end I think it would be best move for OJB group (much better awareness
>> and promotion and in the end development) however it comes down to whether
>> they want to do it and if there is enough Apache volunteers to get it going.
>
> Yes - I agree. It should be totally up to them - like I said, if they
> don't want to do that and just be jakarta, that's fine. I support that
> 100%.
>
> I just thought it was an interesting thing to try to push forward. I would
> bet that inertia being what it is, once the choice is made, that will be it.
> It's easier in the beginning...
>
> I have no idea why they want to move here, but to me, being the 'marquee'
> project in a new Apache subproject has incredible upside for a project
> trying to establish 'mindshare' in what seems to be a confusing vertical.
> No doubt, being part of Jakarta is too. But I would bet that in the
> industry "Apache creates new subproject" is going to get a lot more
> attention than "XXX joins Jakarta".
>
> And having other useful things surrounding it makes it even more of a win.
I just reread this, and want to apologize to the Jakarta community as a
whole for the amount of "business blather" that seems to be peppering my
speech lately. I know I used 'leverage' yesterday (or was it 'synergy'?
'synergy', I think...) and I apologize for that too...
:)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
geirm@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 2:55 AM, "Peter Donald" <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002 11:44, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On 5/2/02 6:33 PM, "Peter Donald" <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts
>>> etc
>>
>> For future reference, can we quantify this 'deservation' of peerage?
>
> It should be size of developer community, size of codebase etc. Alternatively
> you just have to be able to influence the people who vote.
That's clear then :)
>
>> I don't know how big
>> the OJB community is, where it's being used, etc.
>
> From what I hear (mainly from EJB peeps), OJB is all good and fairly popular.
> If the torque people also praise it then I figure it must be decent.
I am sure it's great - I hear great things too. Just didn't know.
>
>> (I know Poolman's is
>> huge, but that doesn't seem to matter - the # of developers seems to be the
>> gating factor...)
>
> The ability to support/grow a community would be biggest factor IMO. The
> larger the number of developers the greater the ability to grow a community.
Does the community size matter in that equation, or is that just a side
product?
This is an aside - the reason I ask is that poolman, which has a very large
user base, intentionally had an very small developer base because the author
recognized the risks inherent in the GPL, so kept it close. I don't feel
strongly about involving Poolman in this db.*.org discussion - I would
rather see it here at Apache, but it's just fine where it is now.
> However if the codebase is too small or too specialized or too good then it
> will never attract community. If it is a platform rather than a product that
> is also key to its success.
>
>>> So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
>>> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
>>> future).
>>
>> This would be great, and would certainly satisfy the 'needs' that motivate
>> me to propose this.
>>
>> However, we have a bit of chicken and egg to deal with. We could go to the
>> Apache board and ask to start it, hoping that something stumbles in, or
>> take a small pause with OJB and try to work out a proposal, bundling
>> several things together to make a new Apache subproject. It would make a
>> stronger proposal.
>
> It comes down to the OJB committers. If they want to do it then there is very
> little standing in the way. I doubt the board would object which means that
> there just needs to be some volunteers from other apache projects to help set
> it all up. Mainly this means making sure the Apache "spirit" is instilled in
> the new PMC, helping with infrastructure (gump, website etc) and advertising.
>
> Overtime it may also mean advocacy (like getting cooperation from ozone and
> xindice, etc or even bringing them to project). And dont forget shameless
> self promotion.
>
> In the end I think it would be best move for OJB group (much better awareness
> and promotion and in the end development) however it comes down to whether
> they want to do it and if there is enough Apache volunteers to get it going.
Yes - I agree. It should be totally up to them - like I said, if they
don't want to do that and just be jakarta, that's fine. I support that
100%.
I just thought it was an interesting thing to try to push forward. I would
bet that inertia being what it is, once the choice is made, that will be it.
It's easier in the beginning...
I have no idea why they want to move here, but to me, being the 'marquee'
project in a new Apache subproject has incredible upside for a project
trying to establish 'mindshare' in what seems to be a confusing vertical.
No doubt, being part of Jakarta is too. But I would bet that in the
industry "Apache creates new subproject" is going to get a lot more
attention than "XXX joins Jakarta".
And having other useful things surrounding it makes it even more of a win.
>
>> 2) We see if any parts of Jakarta are willing to volunteer to join. There
>> is Torque, parts of avalon, commons dbcp. Must be more...
>
> I would not bother with the parts from commons or avalon at this stage. Torque
> could be interesting though, as would poolman ;)
I know you are an Avalon-er, but I thought there was some interest
mentioned. Torque would be interesting, but it's really up to them. They
haven't moved it to commons yet either.
I would be very interested in moving poolman to 'the new thing', as that
would bring lots of people to take a look, I suspect, as it's also pretty
well known. Again, this isn't at all about poolman - just throwing it in
there as a possible supporting resource and to commit myself to involvement.
>
>> Is this moving in the right direction?
>
> I think so. But it is up to someone volunteering to do the legwork. Talk to
> the OJB guys and see if they want to do so. Do the same to torque peeps. If
> all is good then someone will need to help them set up PMC and do all the
> infrastructure stuff.
I thought I was volunteering. :)
The only problem is that yours so far is the only public positive comment so
far. I let it stew for a bit and will talk to OJB in the intrim, but if
people don't see this as a good idea, then it very could might not be.
>
> If you need volunteers I will help integrating gump and also help with their
> website but have no time for politics or coding on their stuff.
That's great.
> Or to put it simply if you want it done and OJB wants it done then it will get
> done - otherwise it wont, simple as that really.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 3 May 2002 11:44, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On 5/2/02 6:33 PM, "Peter Donald" <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts
> > etc
>
> For future reference, can we quantify this 'deservation' of peerage?
It should be size of developer community, size of codebase etc. Alternatively
you just have to be able to influence the people who vote.
> I don't know how big
> the OJB community is, where it's being used, etc.
From what I hear (mainly from EJB peeps), OJB is all good and fairly popular.
If the torque people also praise it then I figure it must be decent.
> (I know Poolman's is
> huge, but that doesn't seem to matter - the # of developers seems to be the
> gating factor...)
The ability to support/grow a community would be biggest factor IMO. The
larger the number of developers the greater the ability to grow a community.
However if the codebase is too small or too specialized or too good then it
will never attract community. If it is a platform rather than a product that
is also key to its success.
> > So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
> > with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
> > future).
>
> This would be great, and would certainly satisfy the 'needs' that motivate
> me to propose this.
>
> However, we have a bit of chicken and egg to deal with. We could go to the
> Apache board and ask to start it, hoping that something stumbles in, or
> take a small pause with OJB and try to work out a proposal, bundling
> several things together to make a new Apache subproject. It would make a
> stronger proposal.
It comes down to the OJB committers. If they want to do it then there is very
little standing in the way. I doubt the board would object which means that
there just needs to be some volunteers from other apache projects to help set
it all up. Mainly this means making sure the Apache "spirit" is instilled in
the new PMC, helping with infrastructure (gump, website etc) and advertising.
Overtime it may also mean advocacy (like getting cooperation from ozone and
xindice, etc or even bringing them to project). And dont forget shameless
self promotion.
In the end I think it would be best move for OJB group (much better awareness
and promotion and in the end development) however it comes down to whether
they want to do it and if there is enough Apache volunteers to get it going.
> 2) We see if any parts of Jakarta are willing to volunteer to join. There
> is Torque, parts of avalon, commons dbcp. Must be more...
I would not bother with the parts from commons or avalon at this stage. Torque
could be interesting though, as would poolman ;)
> Is this moving in the right direction?
I think so. But it is up to someone volunteering to do the legwork. Talk to
the OJB guys and see if they want to do so. Do the same to torque peeps. If
all is good then someone will need to help them set up PMC and do all the
infrastructure stuff.
If you need volunteers I will help integrating gump and also help with their
website but have no time for politics or coding on their stuff.
Or to put it simply if you want it done and OJB wants it done then it will get
done - otherwise it wont, simple as that really.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> My point is that, like it or not (I like it, Costin doesn't) there is some
> benefit of letting like minded people form a community unto themselves -
> this is the whole argument behind bringing XML and Jakarta together - lots
> of like minded people working together can be more than the the parts
> individually. (On this subject, I have concerns about the size of such a
> beastie, but that's not the point here...)
Yes, there is great argument for allowing like minded people to form a
community. But that's an argument for keeping XML and Jakarta apart, not
together. XML people are not interested in Java as a community, and
Jakarta is not interested in XML as a community. Sure they have
cross-over, but not as the communitys chief interest.
The issue is that people are wanting the communities to be discrete, which
is fundamentally flawed. Communities overlap.
Apache mainly has language centric communities. I think this is good, in
that it helps with those particular mentalities and stops us getting these
solutions that are half perl, half java, half rebol. The XML project is
somewhat of an anomaly as XML is not really a computer language but more
of an all pervasive technology.
I think an XML community does make sense. And a DB community does make
sense. But they don't entail implementations.
There should be a Java implementors community. A perl community. A Tcl. A
<insert weird language>. Etc. Which is close to the current. These people
are the developers. They hold 'ownership' of the implementation.
Then there are horizontal communities. XML, DB, GUI, Corba, etc.
These people bring together implementations as a community. They contain
the knowledge of what to use where, how to use it. In short the user
discussion and documentation at a high macro level. These horizontal
communities would not hold implementations though, unless they be XSL
scripts, SQL scripts, or XML scripts that describe GUIs.
This way, everybody is happy?? [Probably not].
It seems to be a classic information architecture problem actually. Does
the user have 1 way to get to product A/data-bite B, or do they have
multiple paths.
The former is easier to manage. It makes more sense to focused users and
keeps things very focused.
The latter is harder to manage, but is far better for users who are
viewing the content. They are able to view the content in a particular
context.
So: Java/Perl/C = Content.
XML/DB/GUI = Context/View. which may contain minor data.
Before anyone gets too anti these ideas, they're just ideas :) I have very
little personal belief in them yet. I've noticed that I tend to get in
trouble saying things on the lists that people think I have a fervent
belief in.
Any views?
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 12:04 PM, "Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> I'm also very unhappy with the xml/jakarta separation and
>>> the balkanisation of apache - as well shown by the current
>>> maven/forest/cocoon/centipede discussion, where even xml.apache.org
>>> is affected by jakarta's NIH.
>>>
>>> So I'll be -1 ( as a jakarta commiter - my vote obviously
>>> doesn't count for that ) on another apache.org fragmentation.
>>
>> Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater
>> Apache community by subject of interest.
>>
>> Stretching your argument to an absurd conclusion, if we eliminated all
>> general@*.apache.org and made a single general@apache.org list, it would
>> quickly become useless as people perceive "noise" differently.
>>
>> People have different interests. I am sure that there are httpd people that
>> are interested in what's going on in Jakarta, but not *all* of them.... I
>> personally adore some of the projects in XML-land, but don't want to be a
>> part of their general@ list...
>>
>
> I'm with Costin on this one, I think, [though I count myself as someone
> who is stilling learning to be an apache person]. Catching up with the
> thread, the suggestions seem to have been:
[SNIP]
> 4) OJB as the nucleus of db.apache.org. Some kind of database focused new
> top level project at Apache:
>
> No no no. Ick. Ack. etc.
>
> What will the plan for db.apache.org be?? When will dbtags move to it.
> When will my rebol source code for accessing mysql go into it, when will
> we add DBVisualiser to it.
You have some great points here.
Dbtags could move to it when they wanted to. Rebol source could go into if
if the community wanted it. It certainly can't come to Jakarta because of
the jakarta charter for java server-side.
My point is that, like it or not (I like it, Costin doesn't) there is some
benefit of letting like minded people form a community unto themselves -
this is the whole argument behind bringing XML and Jakarta together - lots
of like minded people working together can be more than the the parts
individually. (On this subject, I have concerns about the size of such a
beastie, but that's not the point here...)
Having a 'db-ish' focused apache project would mean that the primary
dimenension would be database related, not a language (Java like in Jakarta)
or a specific specification (XML). But an area of interest that spans
programming languages (Java, Rebol, Python, Perl, C, C#), specifications
(SQL, JDO, xxxx), and implementation patterns (server vs client, for
example)
> Basically coming down to, what are top level Apache projects. Mainly they
> seem to be language based [except the flagship webserver, which seems
> really to be 'C' than 'Webserver']. XML does have some issues, but that's
> due to the language not the project.
But real software development isn't 'Uni-language'. I use Java for some
things, Perl/python for others, etc... All the pieces are brought together
to solve problems.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I'm also very unhappy with the xml/jakarta separation and
> > the balkanisation of apache - as well shown by the current
> > maven/forest/cocoon/centipede discussion, where even xml.apache.org
> > is affected by jakarta's NIH.
> >
> > So I'll be -1 ( as a jakarta commiter - my vote obviously
> > doesn't count for that ) on another apache.org fragmentation.
>
> Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater
> Apache community by subject of interest.
>
> Stretching your argument to an absurd conclusion, if we eliminated all
> general@*.apache.org and made a single general@apache.org list, it would
> quickly become useless as people perceive "noise" differently.
>
> People have different interests. I am sure that there are httpd people that
> are interested in what's going on in Jakarta, but not *all* of them.... I
> personally adore some of the projects in XML-land, but don't want to be a
> part of their general@ list...
>
I'm with Costin on this one, I think, [though I count myself as someone
who is stilling learning to be an apache person]. Catching up with the
thread, the suggestions seem to have been:
1) OJB joins Jakarta. I say: Yes. OJB has long been on my list of "this is
very cool and good" and having it in Jakarta would be great.
2) OJB becomes a Jakarta sub-project. Again, Yes.
3) OJB be used as a nucleus of DB-Commons, some kind of Jakarta subproject
specialising in Databases [but still Java]. I'm not convinced here at all.
If OJB had begun at Jakarta I would imagine it would have been a sandbox
component in Commons or Avalon or somesuch, and would have followed
Latka's route. It would now be a full on Jakarta sub-project.
Existing projects with a large enough scope might want to consider reusing
OJB instead of their own. ie) Should dbtags taglib involve some kind of
ojb specific bits? Or do we just need an ojb taglib.
If ojb does have a taglib, do they go into the Taglib project?
OJB must have common components. Bet they have a String utlity. Should OJB
be dependent on Commons? [or Excalibur etc].
4) OJB as the nucleus of db.apache.org. Some kind of database focused new
top level project at Apache:
No no no. Ick. Ack. etc.
What will the plan for db.apache.org be?? When will dbtags move to it.
When will my rebol source code for accessing mysql go into it, when will
we add DBVisualiser to it.
Basically coming down to, what are top level Apache projects. Mainly they
seem to be language based [except the flagship webserver, which seems
really to be 'C' than 'Webserver']. XML does have some issues, but that's
due to the language not the project.
I'm +1 on OJB joining.
+1 on Jakarta.OJB.
-1 on Jakarta.DB-Commons unless otherwise convinced.
-1 on db.apache.org, unless people start offering bribes.
For what it's worth :)
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 1:14 PM, "costinm@covalent.net" <co...@covalent.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> They _will_ be apache people.
>>
>> Of course they _will_ be apache people, but they _aren't_ now. That isn't a
>> bad thing, a criticism or an insult. Just recognizing the reality.
>
> The project was aproved by the PMC - so their commiters _are_
> jakarta commiters, in the same role and position as you and me.
I never argued otherwise.
The discussion wasn't timestamped, so *now* it was approved, but when the
discussion started, they weren't.
>
> ( probably it'll take few days/weeks to get the cvs set up and
> the accounts created, but this is technical detail ).
>
>
>> One of the requirements of bringing in a project is to have a champion, the
>> point being (as I understand it) to help ensure smooth integration into the
>> Apache/Jakarta community.
>
> And a jakarta commiter made the proposal - that qualify ( I'm not sure
> I've seen any formal requirement, I though it's only 'desirable' ).
>
Of course they qualify. Please stop trying to spin this. I am being honest
and open here, and have nothing to gain from this happening other than more
volunteer work for the community.
> I don't know what 'smooth integration' is - getting them the NIH
> virus and a taste for endless flame wars ?
LOL
>
>> Generally (not specifically in this case) you wouldn't (well, I wouldn't)
>> want to bring in a group of people that didn't want to participate in the
>> community as a whole. That's sourceforge, isn't it?
>
> I believe (hope) they had a vote and all their commiters agree with
> the move. Otherwise it would be ilegal to change the copyright - all
> @ holders must agree.
What I was thinking of has nothing to do with that. I assumed that all was
well legally.
I mean participate in the Jakarta/Apache community. Again, I am speaking
generally.
>
>> a committer, but says nothing about if they are in any alignment with the
>> goals and principles of the ASF.
>
> And who is ?
>
> Are the people involved in the current threads on jakarta-general
> in 'alignment with the principles and goals of the ASF' ?
Generally, I think so. There is no 'test' to get in. There is no measure
taken of community compatibility. Suppose Jboss wanted to become a Jakarta
project....
I was not a founder of Jakarta. I am a relative newbie. I started by
participating in an existing community, contributing ideas, code and arguing
with Jon Stevens. For whatever reason, they let me in :)
So from my POV, my views about OSS were shaped by the Jakarta community as
well as long time ASF members. I think that is a good way to be brought
into the community as it assures some degree of convergence. Of course, too
much convergence is boring - new ideas and approaches are necessary to keep
it interesting. (Unless we are talking about 'standards', I guess ;)
> I can't speak for others, but I don't feel any 'ASF spirit'
> when I read jakarta-general.
And why do you think that is? I have a theory - it's only a theory - and
that is with a diversified interest base, there is enough dissonance in POV
that it gets amplified by the impersonal and non-emotive nature of email.
People come across in different ways. Using Jon Stevens as an example, he
one of the nicest people I know. Really.
I only know this because of our in-person meetings. I liked him when I knew
him only by his online persona, but never understood and appreciated his
full personality until we met in person.
I think anyone who has met and talked with him will agree.
>> Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater
>> Apache community by subject of interest.
>
> And the projects are doing exactly that.
>
Hm.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > They _will_ be apache people.
>
> Of course they _will_ be apache people, but they _aren't_ now. That isn't a
> bad thing, a criticism or an insult. Just recognizing the reality.
The project was aproved by the PMC - so their commiters _are_
jakarta commiters, in the same role and position as you and me.
( probably it'll take few days/weeks to get the cvs set up and
the accounts created, but this is technical detail ).
> One of the requirements of bringing in a project is to have a champion, the
> point being (as I understand it) to help ensure smooth integration into the
> Apache/Jakarta community.
And a jakarta commiter made the proposal - that qualify ( I'm not sure
I've seen any formal requirement, I though it's only 'desirable' ).
I don't know what 'smooth integration' is - getting them the NIH
virus and a taste for endless flame wars ?
> Generally (not specifically in this case) you wouldn't (well, I wouldn't)
> want to bring in a group of people that didn't want to participate in the
> community as a whole. That's sourceforge, isn't it?
I believe (hope) they had a vote and all their commiters agree with
the move. Otherwise it would be ilegal to change the copyright - all
@ holders must agree.
> a committer, but says nothing about if they are in any alignment with the
> goals and principles of the ASF.
And who is ?
Are the people involved in the current threads on jakarta-general
in 'alignment with the principles and goals of the ASF' ?
I can't speak for others, but I don't feel any 'ASF spirit'
when I read jakarta-general.
> Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater
> Apache community by subject of interest.
And the projects are doing exactly that.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 10:56 AM, "costinm@covalent.net" <co...@covalent.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> I'll iterate : the point isn't just for it to be OJB, but to put together a
>> package of projects that want to do this. I think the only way for it to be
>> a strong apache community is if it has a large amount of apache
>> participation. The only way to do that is to get something else in there
>> *other* than OJB, as my read of the dev list shows apache people to be a
>> small minority.
>
> They _will_ be apache people.
Of course they _will_ be apache people, but they _aren't_ now. That isn't a
bad thing, a criticism or an insult. Just recognizing the reality.
One of the requirements of bringing in a project is to have a champion, the
point being (as I understand it) to help ensure smooth integration into the
Apache/Jakarta community.
Generally (not specifically in this case) you wouldn't (well, I wouldn't)
want to bring in a group of people that didn't want to participate in the
community as a whole. That's sourceforge, isn't it?
That's all that I mean.
>
> I'm personally very uncomfortable with the term 'apache people' -
> any commiter is IMHO an apache person.
Costin, you misinterpreted what I was saying.
Any committer is an apache person, because of the meritocratic process used
to make those people committers, not because they can type 'cvs commit
Foo.java' and the server accepts it. People participate and contribute, and
they are then granted committer status by their peers in the community.
Hypothetically speaking - and I empathize this to ensure that no one jumps
to the wrong conclusion that this in any way has to do with the individuals
associated with OBJ, as it doesn't - just granting CVS access makes someone
a committer, but says nothing about if they are in any alignment with the
goals and principles of the ASF.
> Some with a big mouth,
> some not. But all are equal as commiters in their project -
> there is no hierarchy. Only the PMC, which thanks to Sam does act as it
> should, like a 'secretary' or 'administrative' entity.
We all agree with you Costin. There is no disagreement.
> I'm also very unhappy with the xml/jakarta separation and
> the balkanisation of apache - as well shown by the current
> maven/forest/cocoon/centipede discussion, where even xml.apache.org
> is affected by jakarta's NIH.
>
> So I'll be -1 ( as a jakarta commiter - my vote obviously
> doesn't count for that ) on another apache.org fragmentation.
Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater
Apache community by subject of interest.
Stretching your argument to an absurd conclusion, if we eliminated all
general@*.apache.org and made a single general@apache.org list, it would
quickly become useless as people perceive "noise" differently.
People have different interests. I am sure that there are httpd people that
are interested in what's going on in Jakarta, but not *all* of them.... I
personally adore some of the projects in XML-land, but don't want to be a
part of their general@ list...
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I'll iterate : the point isn't just for it to be OJB, but to put together a
> package of projects that want to do this. I think the only way for it to be
> a strong apache community is if it has a large amount of apache
> participation. The only way to do that is to get something else in there
> *other* than OJB, as my read of the dev list shows apache people to be a
> small minority.
They _will_ be apache people.
I'm personally very uncomfortable with the term 'apache people' -
any commiter is IMHO an apache person. Some with a big mouth,
some not. But all are equal as commiters in their project -
there is no hierarchy. Only the PMC, which thanks to Sam does act as it
should, like a 'secretary' or 'administrative' entity.
I'm also very unhappy with the xml/jakarta separation and
the balkanisation of apache - as well shown by the current
maven/forest/cocoon/centipede discussion, where even xml.apache.org
is affected by jakarta's NIH.
So I'll be -1 ( as a jakarta commiter - my vote obviously
doesn't count for that ) on another apache.org fragmentation.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/3/02 3:06 AM, "costinm@covalent.net" <co...@covalent.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>>> So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
>>> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
>>> future).
>>
>> So I propose that we put together a proposal for a db.apache.org. We should
>
> I don't believe this comes even close to a db.apache.org - ObjectBridge
> still has to prove itself as a jakarta project, and most other db
> projects are not even there.
Hm.
I'll iterate : the point isn't just for it to be OJB, but to put together a
package of projects that want to do this. I think the only way for it to be
a strong apache community is if it has a large amount of apache
participation. The only way to do that is to get something else in there
*other* than OJB, as my read of the dev list shows apache people to be a
small minority.
>
> As I said, I'm perfectly fine with a project just for ObjectBridge.
And as I said, so am I.
> The only reason for a larger scope ( db.jakarta.org ) was to have
> a larger community, maybe get more code shared and bring more light
> to the other db technologies in jakarta.
Yes
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by co...@covalent.net.
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
> > with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
> > future).
>
> So I propose that we put together a proposal for a db.apache.org. We should
I don't believe this comes even close to a db.apache.org - ObjectBridge
still has to prove itself as a jakarta project, and most other db
projects are not even there.
As I said, I'm perfectly fine with a project just for ObjectBridge.
The only reason for a larger scope ( db.jakarta.org ) was to have
a larger community, maybe get more code shared and bring more light
to the other db technologies in jakarta.
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@adeptra.com>.
On 5/2/02 6:33 PM, "Peter Donald" <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts etc
For future reference, can we quantify this 'deservation' of peerage? I do
know what you mean intuitively but there are all sorts of great things
around, but I don't know how to measure 'deserves'. I kind of want to
reserve the notion of 'deserve' for things like Cactus which started in
commons (sort of :) and grew to a large community. I don't know how big the
OJB community is, where it's being used, etc. (I know Poolman's is huge,
but that doesn't seem to matter - the # of developers seems to be the gating
factor...)
I guess the real question I have is what does it mean to be a 'peer'? Is it
1) location on jakarta web page? No problem. We can do that.
2) Independence of committers to do as they please with their project? No
problem - that's a given.
3) ?
(And I recognize that the components of Jakarta commons are not peers, of
course...)
>
> A somewhat better idea IMO would be to use OJB + Torque as a trampoline for a
> new top-level project "db.apache.org" (or insert something more snappy if you
> want).
There is no way we could do that once they are here. Once those 17 people
are Apache committers in their own subproject, they can do as they please,
like any other subproject. I'll be the first to defend that.
> So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
> future).
This would be great, and would certainly satisfy the 'needs' that motivate
me to propose this.
However, we have a bit of chicken and egg to deal with. We could go to the
Apache board and ask to start it, hoping that something stumbles in, or take
a small pause with OJB and try to work out a proposal, bundling several
things together to make a new Apache subproject. It would make a stronger
proposal.
OJB seems to be in no danger - if we waited a little while (a few days? A
week?), it wouldn't make a difference.
So I propose that we put together a proposal for a db.apache.org. We should
1) see if the OJB community wishes to be a part of it, actually the
'marquee' or 'anchor' project. If not, no foul - we continue with the
proposal to be a subproject of Jakarta.
2) We see if any parts of Jakarta are willing to volunteer to join. There
is Torque, parts of avalon, commons dbcp. Must be more...
If there is interest, I would gladly bring over Poolman with a set of 3
existing Apache committers (at least). If this steps on Commons dbcp's
toes, I'll happy withdraw this point (although to have both would be
nice...)
Is this moving in the right direction?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
Hi,
OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts etc
A somewhat better idea IMO would be to use OJB + Torque as a trampoline for a
new top-level project "db.apache.org" (or insert something more snappy if you
want). So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
future).
While this new db project is gestating we can cross link it extensively from
the jakarta website. After they get off the feet we talk to it the same way
we talk to xml.apache.org ?
On Fri, 3 May 2002 07:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and
> general good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community
> opinion on something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I
> like, btw...)
>
> Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
> subproject.
>
> Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
> created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
> subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
> with that.)
>
> The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> a working name.
>
> There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
> synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
> discovery for new users and developers.
>
> Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
> (Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
> subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
> 'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
>
> We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
>
> Anyone have any comments?
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Database Subproject Discussion : creation of DBCommons ?
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I hate to interrupt all the good fun over standards, bike sheds, and general
> good community feelings, but I would like to solicit community opinion on
> something unrelated to DVSL or Jon Stevens (both of which I like, btw...)
You're taking away all the fun :)
>
> Recently, it was proposed that ObjectBridge be brought to Jakarta as a
> subproject.
>
> Costin suggested, and I supported, that a subproject of wider scope be
> created to allow the collection of similar technologies into one larger
> subcommunity (that isn't an exact quote, but I think he'll agree in general
> with that.)
>
> The idea would be to bring in ObjectBridge, but create a Commons-like
> environment in which other projects can be brought. Call it DB-Commons as
> a working name.
Ok.
>
> There are some good reasons, including community alignment, inter-project
> synergy (there, I used the word in an Apache-related post), and ease of
> discovery for new users and developers.
:)
>
> Off the top of my head, in Jakarta we have lots of db related tools already
> (Torque, commons-dbcp, and I am sure others...), and having a db-focused
> subproject in which they can be brought to with a lower barrier than
> 'fullsubproject' might be very benficial.
>
> We already have the successful Commons model to use as a starting point.
>
> Anyone have any comments?
>
Can we have Avalon related components in DB commons? Avalon has the
DataSourceComponent interface and associated implementations. There are
some things we have in Excalibur that we *can't* donate to Commons
because the charter does not allow it (I think its something about the
project can't rely on non-commons projects or something).
It only makes sense to have a focused commons-like area. This would
make the third one. Excalibur is (at least now) a commons-like area
focused on Avalon, Jakarta Commons is multipurposed, and this would
be fine.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>