You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to phoenix-dev@avalon.apache.org by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org> on 2002/11/17 09:18:29 UTC
[Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Hi,
I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
infrastructure to a new top level project.
Below is the outline of my reasoning why I believe this to be in the best
interests of Avalon. Over the next few weeks I plan to put together a
"vision" document and proposal - if anyone else wants to help (or do it) then
they are welcome to take over ;)
It may be best to start from the start. I initially started observing avalon
when it was pretty dead. Nothing was happening so I went away. Then all of a
sudden this Berin guy started doing stuff and then there was life. Fede and
Stefano also came back and together they kicked the tires and started the
fires.
I was building another component based server framework at the time and thus I
used this as an opportunity to bounce ideas off Berin. At the time what I was
writing was much more monolithic, lower abstractions and used a lot more off
the shelf components (w3c DOM/JDOM, JNDI, Properties etc). I eventually
managed to refactor into something nicer - more in the way Avalon was going.
A month or so later I came on board and stuff progressed. We started to break
apart the monolithic avalon project into bite sized chunks that more
accurately modelled the units in which they were used. We also became able to
actually release parts that were at different maturity levels. It was still
"big ball of mud" style programming but we were moving forward.
We regularly rewrote the whole codebase - as many as three times in one
particular month. Along with that was the flamefests - far more excited than
has been seen in Avalon for a long time. However they were of a far nicer
variety than what is now present in Avalon - at least then we were all
interested in promoting Avalon as a whole and there was mutual respect
between developers. Even when we were competing for our ideas we went out of
our way to help other - I even recall Berin helping out with JDOM stuff which
he wasn't too fond of ;) Some of the code was not too hot but the level of
collaboration and cooperation was great.
Fast forward to now. Most of the problems arise from committers who were added
into Avalon before they had demonstrated any capability or desire to
cooperate with the existing committers (and some to this day have not
committed a line of code). As a result there is whole codebases that are one
man jobs - a nomans land which other committers avoid like the plague.
It also seems that we have aquired that condition of "try to block competition
via politics" which previously we had avoided. On a few occasions Stephen has
tried to block improvements in Phoenix because it competed with his pet
container.
And thats not to mention the personal attacks that have recently become a
distinguishing quality on the avalon lists. Add that to the behaviour
regarding code ownership and it just gets messy.
So things are changing - right? Appologies have been made and Avalon may
become a TLP - which will supposedly "fix" the problems that have occured in
the past.
Well - I guess I am a big believer in actions speaking louder than words. And
actions have not changed that much.
Rather than seeking consensus for major decisions (like becoming a TLP) we
have seen Stephen try to push through his own ideas - even when it was
obvious that a large proportion of active developers chose not to engage the
proposal, it was still sent along to the board.
Stephen still trolls the phoenix list - though I am sure he would describe it
as enlightening users to what their missing by not choosing his "amazing
Merlin" rather than phoenix. It has got bad enough that a few people choose
to ask me support questions by personal email rather than via the public
lists because they feel uncomfortable with the way Stephen "helps". Hell -
some people have even explicitly asked me not to mention their projects in
public yet because they don't want Stephens "help".
So regardless of whether it is intentional or not Stephen is a harmful
influence on people wanting to use or develope phoenix.
Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me. It
has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to solve
some of the problems.
And then theres Nicolas claims that "Phoenix community != Avalon community,
it's quite clear to all" and that combined with his vision and discussion
that involved removing my commit privs if I did not agree with the vision was
somewhat disturbing.
What was even more disturbing was the "cooperate or else" thread sent by
Stephen to the community list where he outlined his thoughts on how
cooperation should be done. Relevent snippet;
"What this discussion should be about is a framework we are obliged to
live with because this is this "brand" management thing - not a
discussion on a particular flame. At the end of the day - getting a
bunch of committers to get their heads together on brand is a painful
experience - UNLESS - you provide incentives to maintain a brand. How
do you do that? You create a downside that is sufficiently unattractive
that people have to work together to sort things out. The downside of
forcing re-branding is a significant downside. Its just like forking -
but heavier - forking just means that you have to work your but off to
build the community, but re-branding means investing a lot more time in
brand recognition and brand loyalty - and loosing a lot more relative to
what exists in terms of public perception. People actually do think
about the downsides of possible actions before taking particular
actions. These downsides are weighed against the overhead of solving a
problem though collaboration and other positive good sounding stuff that
we like to talk about. So before you tell me off - keep in mind that
up-sides and downsides provide real people with a sense of perspective.
Without perspective, well, you just don't get the depth."
So I can just imagine what is going to happen when we start integrating Info
into Phoenix or some other feature that competes with his toolkits.
Putting all these things together it becomes obvious that Phoenix is hurt by
staying in Avalon. The users are hurt because they are subject to trolling
and the developers are hurt because they constantly have to work around other
people who don't participate in the development but can still cause harm.
So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
infrastructure.
This should also help the wider Avalon community because it will remove the
reason for much conflict and it will help bring the scope down to a more
manageable level.
Anyways feel free to email me on or off list with suggestions or offers to
help. Anyone who is interested in being part of this initiative should also
email me and I will make sure their name is down on the proposal. All phoenix
devs will obviously be included but you should email me to give your thoughts
anyways :)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------
"You can't depend on your eyes when your
imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain
-----------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
> >avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
> >infrastructure.
>
> If it would be better for Phoenix to become its own TLP, then I will
> support it. However, I would be
> reluctant to support it if the cheif issue is social. If there is real
> technical benefit to the Phoenix TLP,
> then +1.
There has been a "real technical benefit" to an independent Phoenix project
for a while and the issue has come up a couple of times in the past.
The reason why it stayed was purely social. I had hoping that it would bring
more interest to Avalon because Frameworks are not product centered (and thus
has no feature lists) and thus it is really hard to get people interested in
them ;)
So I thought it was in the interest of Avalon to keep it close but I no longer
think so ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it binds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 08:17, Peter Donald wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>>>Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me.
>>>>It has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to
>>>>solve some of the problems.
>
> where?
>
>>>I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>>
>>Essentially if it is not the framework or a container it becomes out of scope.
>>So majority of exclibur/cornerstone/logkit/apps gets moved out. The remaining
>>containers (fortress/merlin) then go back into jakarta-avalon/scratchpad and
>>get rebuilt from scratch (perhaps along with framework via the avalon5
>>proposal). As Nicola put it "Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's
>>quite clear to all" so I assume his opinion was that phoenix also got
>>ejected.
>
>
> I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
> silly to even consider.
>
> I would say that, if avalon were to merge CVSes, fortress and merlin
> would go to avalon/scratchpad and that phoenix and ecm would go to
> avalon/phoenix and avalon/ecm, respectively (or something similar). I
> would guess that is also what Nicola meant, ie he assumed we all agree
> that Phoenix would definitely get a place in a "new" avalon so he didn't
> mention it.
Correct.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 13:22, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
> > silly to even consider.
>
> 'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
freeing is okay, if that is what "the developers working on phoenix"
really want. Ejecting is bad, which is the word I read and somewhat
emotionally objected too.
> The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to vetoing the type of change they
> were happy making for a number of years.
I think a potential avalon PMC would not want to do that. Especially
considering that most of the people (all?) who work on phoenix are on
that PMC!
> We want out.
:'( I've already said why I think that is bad (both wanting it and doing
it ).
> Refer my 'line in the sand' posting.
read that, sent a reply too...
I really can't figure out why you think an Avalon PMC would veto changes
the developers want to make to phoenix, or what leads you to believe
that they could if they wanted to.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
Stephen,
at the moment your question may be valid, but it is still
not something you'll likely to ever get answered.
Berin wrote this:
"[The marathon voting] forced Peter to play a hand he did
not really want to play."
If you're trying to figure out the twists and turns
regarding Phoenix's separation from Avalon, then this
may be a better place to start.
And no, I have no clue what Berin is on about.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
Peter,
You are also a committer to Phoenix (have committed without revert). As such you are both
community and committer. You get a vote on 'freedom' (otherwise referred to as 'eject' here).
- Paul
--- Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 11:55 AM, Stephen
McConnell wrote:
> > Its not fanning flames - its a question that has a derict bearing on
> > my opinion concerning the seperation of Phoenix from Avalon. If "the
> > community" is Pete and Paul, that not sufficent and will only lead to
> > the fragmentation of Avalon and the collapse of Phoenix. I collapse
> > of Phoenix would be detrimental to Avalon.
>
> Untrue. I'm in the community, as well as everyone on the phoenix-dev
> list.
> -pete
> --
> peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 11:55 AM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Its not fanning flames - its a question that has a derict bearing on
> my opinion concerning the seperation of Phoenix from Avalon. If "the
> community" is Pete and Paul, that not sufficent and will only lead to
> the fragmentation of Avalon and the collapse of Phoenix. I collapse
> of Phoenix would be detrimental to Avalon.
Untrue. I'm in the community, as well as everyone on the phoenix-dev
list.
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Stephen, there is no need to fan flames.
>
Berin:
Its not fanning flames - its a question that has a derict bearing on my
opinion concerning the seperation of Phoenix from Avalon. If "the
community" is Pete and Paul, that not sufficent and will only lead to
the fragmentation of Avalon and the collapse of Phoenix. I collapse of
Phoenix would be detrimental to Avalon. Damage to Avalon is not
something I will ignore. If this Phoenix community is viable, and if
there is concensus within said community, then that's a completely
different story. Every single bit of information I have in front of me
right now suggest that Pete isn't happy and he action is to fork a
community because of a personality issue. I am asking for more more
information - more evidence that this is something tangible. More
evidence that shows that this is something benefitial.
So let's forget amout phrases like fanning flames and get onto actual facts.
Steve.
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:19 AM
>>To: Avalon Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Stephen McConnell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Paul Hammant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>phoenix seems quite
>>
>>
>>>>>silly to even consider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
>>>>
>>>>The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to
>>>>vetoing the type of change they
>>>>were happy making for a number of years. We want out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>On the subject of "we" - aside from youself and Pete (which
>>>
>>>
>>is more of
>>
>>
>>>a "couple" than a "communty") who are the committers that
>>>
>>>
>>constity "we" ?
>>
>>
>>Woops - please replace "constity" with "constitute" in the
>>above sentence.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>--
>>
>>Stephen J. McConnell
>>
>>OSM SARL
>>digital products for a global economy
>>mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
>>http://www.osm.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
Stephen, there is no need to fan flames.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:19 AM
> To: Avalon Developers List
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
>
>
>
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Paul Hammant wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting'
> phoenix seems quite
> >>> silly to even consider.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> 'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
> >>
> >> The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to
> >> vetoing the type of change they
> >> were happy making for a number of years. We want out.
> >
> >
> > On the subject of "we" - aside from youself and Pete (which
> is more of
> > a "couple" than a "communty") who are the committers that
> constity "we" ?
>
>
> Woops - please replace "constity" with "constitute" in the
> above sentence.
>
> :-)
>
> --
>
> Stephen J. McConnell
>
> OSM SARL
> digital products for a global economy
> mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
> http://www.osm.net
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>>> I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
>>> silly to even consider.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
>>
>> The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to
>> vetoing the type of change they
>> were happy making for a number of years. We want out.
>
>
> On the subject of "we" - aside from youself and Pete (which is more of
> a "couple" than a "communty") who are the committers that constity "we" ?
Woops - please replace "constity" with "constitute" in the above sentence.
:-)
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
>>silly to even consider.
>>
>>
>
>'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
>
>The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to vetoing the type of change they
>were happy making for a number of years. We want out.
>
On the subject of "we" - aside from youself and Pete (which is more of a
"couple" than a "communty") who are the committers that constity "we" ?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
> silly to even consider.
'ejecting' is the wrong word. 'freeing' is the right word.
The people to do the work on Phoenix do not want the Avalon PMC to vetoing the type of change they
were happy making for a number of years. We want out.
Refer my 'line in the sand' posting.
- Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 08:17, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > >Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me.
> > > It has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to
> > > solve some of the problems.
where?
> > I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>
> Essentially if it is not the framework or a container it becomes out of scope.
> So majority of exclibur/cornerstone/logkit/apps gets moved out. The remaining
> containers (fortress/merlin) then go back into jakarta-avalon/scratchpad and
> get rebuilt from scratch (perhaps along with framework via the avalon5
> proposal). As Nicola put it "Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's
> quite clear to all" so I assume his opinion was that phoenix also got
> ejected.
I'm strongly -1 on such a move. Frankly, 'ejecting' phoenix seems quite
silly to even consider.
I would say that, if avalon were to merge CVSes, fortress and merlin
would go to avalon/scratchpad and that phoenix and ecm would go to
avalon/phoenix and avalon/ecm, respectively (or something similar). I
would guess that is also what Nicola meant, ie he assumed we all agree
that Phoenix would definitely get a place in a "new" avalon so he didn't
mention it.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>
>>>Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me.
>>>It has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to
>>>solve some of the problems.
>>>
>>>
>>I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>>
>>
>
>Essentially if it is not the framework or a container it becomes out of scope.
>So majority of exclibur/cornerstone/logkit/apps gets moved out. The remaining
>containers (fortress/merlin) then go back into jakarta-avalon/scratchpad and
>get rebuilt from scratch (perhaps along with framework via the avalon5
>proposal). As Nicola put it "Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's
>quite clear to all" so I assume his opinion was that phoenix also got
>ejected.
>
LOL
An interesting interpritation!
I just would like to say that I disagree with the slant you have placed
on just about everything above. Pete - please - there has been some
disucssion on this - no decisions - some opinions - the only thing that
can be asserted at this time is that there is concensus that a
reorganization is required, and that the most significant impact would
be on the Avalon Apps area. Perhaps you should look back on the
archives concerning the question and scope combined with PMC
responsibilities on charter, migration and restucturing.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>>>Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me.
>>>It has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to
>>>solve some of the problems.
>>
>>I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>
> Essentially if it is not the framework or a container it becomes out of scope.
> So majority of exclibur/cornerstone/logkit/apps gets moved out.
It's not a scope problem but an opportunity, and you know it, since you
have agreed on it in principle, both on this list and on the Commons
list where you are part of the PMC.
Turbine developers seem interested too.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103493058712394&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=turbine-dev&m=103551475316272&w=2
> The remaining
> containers (fortress/merlin) then go back into jakarta-avalon/scratchpad
They go in jakarta-avalon/scratchpad IMVHO where they belong, not "go
back". I don't recall Fortress being released, nor the new Merlin, so I
reckon that they are still in "scratchpad".
> and
> get rebuilt from scratch (perhaps along with framework via the avalon5
> proposal).
No.
I never recall saying it.
What I remember saying is that maybe what will come out as a reference
container is something new, different from these, that gets rebuild from
scratch.
Could be, could not be, I'm not the (only) one to decide.
> As Nicola put it "Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's
> quite clear to all" so I assume his opinion was that phoenix also got
> ejected.
No.
I have already explained this.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103755622823103&w=2
"
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:54, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's quite clear to all.
>
> Not clear at all. I would think you would be least likely to
> try and divide the Avalon community that way.
I'm stating what many believe is a fact, not a tentative to divide.
I will not do it further.
[...]
You are disregarding the fact that design should restart with consensus
now, not majority votes.
"
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me.
> > It has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to
> > solve some of the problems.
>
> I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
Essentially if it is not the framework or a container it becomes out of scope.
So majority of exclibur/cornerstone/logkit/apps gets moved out. The remaining
containers (fortress/merlin) then go back into jakarta-avalon/scratchpad and
get rebuilt from scratch (perhaps along with framework via the avalon5
proposal). As Nicola put it "Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's
quite clear to all" so I assume his opinion was that phoenix also got
ejected.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Religion is what the common people see as true, the |
| wise people see as false, and the rulers see as |
| useful" --Seneca |
*------------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:02, Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
> >avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
> >infrastructure.
>
> If it would be better for Phoenix to become its own TLP, then I will
> support it. However, I would be
> reluctant to support it if the cheif issue is social. If there is real
> technical benefit to the Phoenix TLP,
> then +1.
There has been a "real technical benefit" to an independent Phoenix project
for a while and the issue has come up a couple of times in the past.
The reason why it stayed was purely social. I had hoping that it would bring
more interest to Avalon because Frameworks are not product centered (and thus
has no feature lists) and thus it is really hard to get people interested in
them ;)
So I thought it was in the interest of Avalon to keep it close but I no longer
think so ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it binds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
>not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
>involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
>things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
>infrastructure to a new top level project.
>
>Below is the outline of my reasoning why I believe this to be in the best
>interests of Avalon. Over the next few weeks I plan to put together a
>"vision" document and proposal - if anyone else wants to help (or do it) then
>they are welcome to take over ;)
>
>It may be best to start from the start. I initially started observing avalon
>when it was pretty dead. Nothing was happening so I went away. Then all of a
>sudden this Berin guy started doing stuff and then there was life. Fede and
>Stefano also came back and together they kicked the tires and started the
>fires.
>
>I was building another component based server framework at the time and thus I
>used this as an opportunity to bounce ideas off Berin. At the time what I was
>writing was much more monolithic, lower abstractions and used a lot more off
>the shelf components (w3c DOM/JDOM, JNDI, Properties etc). I eventually
>managed to refactor into something nicer - more in the way Avalon was going.
>
>A month or so later I came on board and stuff progressed. We started to break
>apart the monolithic avalon project into bite sized chunks that more
>accurately modelled the units in which they were used. We also became able to
>actually release parts that were at different maturity levels. It was still
>"big ball of mud" style programming but we were moving forward.
>
>We regularly rewrote the whole codebase - as many as three times in one
>particular month. Along with that was the flamefests - far more excited than
>has been seen in Avalon for a long time. However they were of a far nicer
>variety than what is now present in Avalon - at least then we were all
>interested in promoting Avalon as a whole and there was mutual respect
>between developers. Even when we were competing for our ideas we went out of
>our way to help other - I even recall Berin helping out with JDOM stuff which
>he wasn't too fond of ;) Some of the code was not too hot but the level of
>collaboration and cooperation was great.
>
That history is fairly accurate. It is important to note that there was
also a lot more discussion
*before* things got committed to CVS. The recent mindshare battles
fought in CVS is very bad
all the way around.
>Fast forward to now. Most of the problems arise from committers who were added
>into Avalon before they had demonstrated any capability or desire to
>cooperate with the existing committers (and some to this day have not
>committed a line of code). As a result there is whole codebases that are one
>man jobs - a nomans land which other committers avoid like the plague.
>
>It also seems that we have aquired that condition of "try to block competition
>via politics" which previously we had avoided. On a few occasions Stephen has
>tried to block improvements in Phoenix because it competed with his pet
>container.
>
>And thats not to mention the personal attacks that have recently become a
>distinguishing quality on the avalon lists. Add that to the behaviour
>regarding code ownership and it just gets messy.
>
>So things are changing - right? Appologies have been made and Avalon may
>become a TLP - which will supposedly "fix" the problems that have occured in
>the past.
>
Many of the problems are social in nature. The TLP will help provide a
mechanism to resolve these
issues. I fear though that the PMC can be abused just as well as it can
be used.
>Rather than seeking consensus for major decisions (like becoming a TLP) we
>have seen Stephen try to push through his own ideas - even when it was
>obvious that a large proportion of active developers chose not to engage the
>proposal, it was still sent along to the board.
>
I don't like the quick timeframe at all.
>Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me. It
>has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to solve
>some of the problems.
>
I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>Putting all these things together it becomes obvious that Phoenix is hurt by
>staying in Avalon. The users are hurt because they are subject to trolling
>and the developers are hurt because they constantly have to work around other
>people who don't participate in the development but can still cause harm.
>
>So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
>avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
>infrastructure.
>
If it would be better for Phoenix to become its own TLP, then I will
support it. However, I would be
reluctant to support it if the cheif issue is social. If there is real
technical benefit to the Phoenix TLP,
then +1.
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AW: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Mauro Talevi wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>> I really thing things could go a lot further than that. If you look
>> at the solutions that are being addressed by Merlin and Phoenix -
>> they are different. Phoenix is much more focussed on the application
>> deployment scenario. If you attempt to look at Phoenix as a enbeded
>> component deployment solution is sucks big time. If you look at
>> Merlin it has zero app level features (i.e. Merlin as app-server
>> solution sucks) - but it really is nice at the component level. Heck
>> - putting these solutions together would be brilliant.
>
>
> Personally, I think of Phoenix as a app-server - much like Tomcat but
> for generic apps, not just webapps.
> Its strength is that it provides an out-of-the-box app container.
> I don't know Merlin- so I can't make any comment on its pros and cons
> - but as you say Merlin and Phoenix
> have such different aims and target application scenario, then maybe
> it's best to keep them separate.
> Often, trying to bring together too many orthogonal requirements only
> results in something that is not as
> effective as two separate apps.
That makes sense - based on feedback on the user list and priorities I
have, the appliction of Merlin as an implementation concern mean that it
becomes totally orthogrinal to the Phoenix objectives. However - we
still need to take into consideration an area where there is an overlap
of interests. Phoenix does coponent assembly and deployment - Merlin as
well. Ok, Phoenix is the context of stuctured apps - Merlin ios in the
context of finer-grain componet assembly. When users want both there is
a conflict/duplication. This is most apparent in things like the
defintion of meta data. For example, I have a fork of corenwerstone
that contains supplimentarty meta data that allows the useage of
Cornerstone components in an embeeded environment (just the the James
project in some areas). It's possible today because Merlin supports the
Phoenix meta modelbut it would be much nicer if that model converged to
a single solution. If you really do the analysis - you end up with a
sceanrio where the Phoenix appl listener model can be repesented as a
lifecyle extension. Within the inclusion of meta information for that
particular feature, we are really close to a comon model. Just about
all the rest can be handled in the implemetation.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> Cheers, Mauro
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AW: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Mauro Talevi <ma...@aquilonia.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
> I really thing things could go a lot further than that. If you look
> at the solutions that are being addressed by Merlin and Phoenix - they
> are different. Phoenix is much more focussed on the application
> deployment scenario. If you attempt to look at Phoenix as a enbeded
> component deployment solution is sucks big time. If you look at
> Merlin it has zero app level features (i.e. Merlin as app-server
> solution sucks) - but it really is nice at the component level. Heck
> - putting these solutions together would be brilliant.
Personally, I think of Phoenix as a app-server - much like Tomcat but
for generic apps, not just webapps.
Its strength is that it provides an out-of-the-box app container.
I don't know Merlin- so I can't make any comment on its pros and cons -
but as you say Merlin and Phoenix
have such different aims and target application scenario, then maybe
it's best to keep them separate.
Often, trying to bring together too many orthogonal requirements only
results in something that is not as
effective as two separate apps.
Cheers, Mauro
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AW: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
>hello,
>
>
>
>>-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
>>Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. November 2002 11:06
>>An: Avalon-Phoenix Developers List
>>Betreff: Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regardless, what you describe seem to be interpersonal problems between
>>>>certain individuals. Would you mind explaining precisely why a promotion
>>>>of Phoenix to a TLP would solve these socially motivated problems?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Because those same individuals have vote and commit privlidges
>>>
>>>
>>on phoenix. And
>>
>>
>>>thus people who have never participated in the development of
>>>
>>>
>>Phoenix can
>>
>>
>>>block changes in phoenix if it conflicts or competes with their
>>>
>>>
>>pet toolkit
>>
>>
>>>(this has happened in the past and will happen again if we
>>>
>>>
>>stay). Progressing
>>
>>
>>>to a TLP essentially removes that risk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There are two mistakes you have made here Pete:
>>
>> 1. I have contributed to Phoneix during its early days, locating
>> and reporting bugs, documentation and end-user support (back
>> when there were lots of problems and the comunity was small).
>>
>> 2. Objections that I have raised have been in relation to the
>> overarching issue of avoiding inconsitencies and
>> incompatabilities related to concurrent containerment
>> solutions.
>>
>>The problems that have occured arrose when we didn't agree on approaches
>>concerning component assembly, configuration and context management, and
>>more recently - meta. You made it clear that the approaches I was
>>putting forward at the time would *never* make it into Phoenix (or any
>>other project you consider to be under your control). You reinforced
>>that point of view with sustained -1, ensuring my exclusion. Following
>>this, you chose to proceed on a path of character assasination.
>>
>>
>
>btw - blaming each other for having done something wrong wouldn't
>solve ur problems anyway.
>
Consider it as nothing more that me exposing a little frustration from
time to time on statements of what has happened, and annoyance
concerning projections about what will happen. His comments on
interference and etc., etc. is so full of rubbish - and I reserver the
right to correct him when he drops these little references. One day
Pete's going to get over whatever his problem is - but as long as he
keep up the back-stabbing, slander and innuendoes ... well, he's going
get his but kicked because he has a tendency to do all over the place -
not just here.
There is a seperate thread just reserved for this which Pete needs to
respond to.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103670081300004&r=1&w=2
>the point is that people who just want to use a container like system,
>first of all are getting focused to phoenix because there is a allready
>working release and a couple of other third party projects are using
>phoenix as their underlying technology. so basicly phoenix has been
>proven to work out of the box and that is what matters to people. having
>a different architectural design approach isn't that much important to
>people if they are just starting over to use a container system.
>
>so what i have to say is - don't screw up the good work just because
>having two opposit opinions. that problem could be solved.
>
I really thing things could go a lot further than that. If you look at
the solutions that are being addressed by Merlin and Phoenix - they are
different. Phoenix is much more focussed on the application deployment
scenario. If you attempt to look at Phoenix as a enbeded component
deployment solution is sucks big time. If you look at Merlin it has
zero app level features (i.e. Merlin as app-server solution sucks) - but
it really is nice at the component level. Heck - putting these
solutions together would be brilliant.
Cheers, Steve.
>With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen
>
>Daniel S. Haischt IT Consulting
>______________________________
>[revolutionary and alpha geek]
>
>Daniel S. Haischt
>Grabenstrasse 11
>D-71083 Herrenberg
>G E R M A N Y
>
>FON: +49 -7032-992909
> +49 -700-DHAISCHT
>FAX: +49 -7032-992910
>CELLULAR: +49 -172-7668936
>
>email: daniel.haischt@daniel-s-haischt.biz
>web: http://www.daniel-s-haischt.biz
>
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
>Version: 3.12
>GCS dx s:- a- C++ UB++++ P+++ L++++ E W+++ N+++ o-- K- w---
>O++ M++ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+++ 5+ X+++ R+ tv++ b+++ DI+ D+++
>G e++ h-- r+ y+++++
>------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: AW: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>.
Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
> the point is that people who just want to use a container like system,
> first of all are getting focused to phoenix because there is a allready
> working release and a couple of other third party projects are using
> phoenix as their underlying technology. so basicly phoenix has been
> proven to work out of the box and that is what matters to people. having
> a different architectural design approach isn't that much important to
> people if they are just starting over to use a container system.
As a "corporate user" I can only agree. We use Phoenix, because it does
what we want and we know there is a community of developers behind it,
that overlaps with the Avalon community. If Phoenix were to be seperated
out, it would in fact be more likely that we choose another container.
As it is, we stay with the "Avalon-community-recommended-and-most-used"
container.
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
AW: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by "Daniel S. Haischt" <si...@gmx.net>.
hello,
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. November 2002 11:06
> An: Avalon-Phoenix Developers List
> Betreff: Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
>
>
>
>
> Peter Donald wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> >
> >>Regardless, what you describe seem to be interpersonal problems between
> >>certain individuals. Would you mind explaining precisely why a promotion
> >>of Phoenix to a TLP would solve these socially motivated problems?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because those same individuals have vote and commit privlidges
> on phoenix. And
> >thus people who have never participated in the development of
> Phoenix can
> >block changes in phoenix if it conflicts or competes with their
> pet toolkit
> >(this has happened in the past and will happen again if we
> stay). Progressing
> >to a TLP essentially removes that risk.
> >
>
> There are two mistakes you have made here Pete:
>
> 1. I have contributed to Phoneix during its early days, locating
> and reporting bugs, documentation and end-user support (back
> when there were lots of problems and the comunity was small).
>
> 2. Objections that I have raised have been in relation to the
> overarching issue of avoiding inconsitencies and
> incompatabilities related to concurrent containerment
> solutions.
>
> The problems that have occured arrose when we didn't agree on approaches
> concerning component assembly, configuration and context management, and
> more recently - meta. You made it clear that the approaches I was
> putting forward at the time would *never* make it into Phoenix (or any
> other project you consider to be under your control). You reinforced
> that point of view with sustained -1, ensuring my exclusion. Following
> this, you chose to proceed on a path of character assasination.
btw - blaming each other for having done something wrong wouldn't
solve ur problems anyway.
the point is that people who just want to use a container like system,
first of all are getting focused to phoenix because there is a allready
working release and a couple of other third party projects are using
phoenix as their underlying technology. so basicly phoenix has been
proven to work out of the box and that is what matters to people. having
a different architectural design approach isn't that much important to
people if they are just starting over to use a container system.
so what i have to say is - don't screw up the good work just because
having two opposit opinions. that problem could be solved.
With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen
Daniel S. Haischt IT Consulting
______________________________
[revolutionary and alpha geek]
Daniel S. Haischt
Grabenstrasse 11
D-71083 Herrenberg
G E R M A N Y
FON: +49 -7032-992909
+49 -700-DHAISCHT
FAX: +49 -7032-992910
CELLULAR: +49 -172-7668936
email: daniel.haischt@daniel-s-haischt.biz
web: http://www.daniel-s-haischt.biz
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS dx s:- a- C++ UB++++ P+++ L++++ E W+++ N+++ o-- K- w---
O++ M++ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+++ 5+ X+++ R+ tv++ b+++ DI+ D+++
G e++ h-- r+ y+++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
>
>>Regardless, what you describe seem to be interpersonal problems between
>>certain individuals. Would you mind explaining precisely why a promotion
>>of Phoenix to a TLP would solve these socially motivated problems?
>>
>>
>
>Because those same individuals have vote and commit privlidges on phoenix. And
>thus people who have never participated in the development of Phoenix can
>block changes in phoenix if it conflicts or competes with their pet toolkit
>(this has happened in the past and will happen again if we stay). Progressing
>to a TLP essentially removes that risk.
>
There are two mistakes you have made here Pete:
1. I have contributed to Phoneix during its early days, locating
and reporting bugs, documentation and end-user support (back
when there were lots of problems and the comunity was small).
2. Objections that I have raised have been in relation to the
overarching issue of avoiding inconsitencies and
incompatabilities related to concurrent containerment
solutions.
The problems that have occured arrose when we didn't agree on approaches
concerning component assembly, configuration and context management, and
more recently - meta. You made it clear that the approaches I was
putting forward at the time would *never* make it into Phoenix (or any
other project you consider to be under your control). You reinforced
that point of view with sustained -1, ensuring my exclusion. Following
this, you chose to proceed on a path of character assasination.
Well, what can I say, ... keep up the good work?
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:20, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> However, if you make Phoenix its own project who gets vote&commit
> privileges on it? Is there a common procedure?
Well technically the new TLP gets to decide themselves but the basic rules is
that anyone who participates in the development of something gets the privs.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
---------------------------------------------------
"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we
cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our
responsibilities." -Josiah Stamp
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> Because those same individuals have vote and commit privlidges on phoenix. And
> thus people who have never participated in the development of Phoenix can
> block changes in phoenix if it conflicts or competes with their pet toolkit
> (this has happened in the past and will happen again if we stay). Progressing
> to a TLP essentially removes that risk.
Ok, got it. So it's not a social problem, it's a political problem.
However, if you make Phoenix its own project who gets vote&commit
privileges on it? Is there a common procedure?
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:17, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that
> > does not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for
> > all parties involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One
> > of the first things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix
> > and related infrastructure to a new top level project.
>
> I don't know about all the problems you mentioned, I only subscribe to
> this list and it has always been very helpful and friendly. I think you
> should clearly identify the lists that you think are becoming
> ineffective - certainly you don't mean this one?
This list (or where it moves to) will most likely be more active in the future
with a lot more focus. And there will be a lot more development that takes
place on this (where now it can occur on the avalon-dev list aswell). So we
are only going to get a better environment IMO.
> Regardless, what you describe seem to be interpersonal problems between
> certain individuals. Would you mind explaining precisely why a promotion
> of Phoenix to a TLP would solve these socially motivated problems?
Because those same individuals have vote and commit privlidges on phoenix. And
thus people who have never participated in the development of Phoenix can
block changes in phoenix if it conflicts or competes with their pet toolkit
(this has happened in the past and will happen again if we stay). Progressing
to a TLP essentially removes that risk.
> I'm not for or against your proposal (and have no vote anyway), I just
> would like to understand it :)
It will basically give Phoenix a lot more exposure and give the Phoenix
developers a lot more room to do what needs to be done to make sure Phoenix
continues to provide a good "user" experience and all that ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it.
--Gandhi
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Ulrich Mayring <ul...@denic.de>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
> not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
> involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
> things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
> infrastructure to a new top level project.
I don't know about all the problems you mentioned, I only subscribe to
this list and it has always been very helpful and friendly. I think you
should clearly identify the lists that you think are becoming
ineffective - certainly you don't mean this one?
Regardless, what you describe seem to be interpersonal problems between
certain individuals. Would you mind explaining precisely why a promotion
of Phoenix to a TLP would solve these socially motivated problems?
I'm not for or against your proposal (and have no vote anyway), I just
would like to understand it :)
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Systementwicklung
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@citi-us.com>.
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org]
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eung-ju Park wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for Phoenix becoming a jakarta top level project
> >
> >
> > Given that we are not under Jakarta anymore, would that
> mean that having
> > Phoenix as an Avalon "top level" project would be ok?
>
> can you explain to me what is a "top level" project of a "top level"
> project?
I think Nicola is referring to how Log4J relates to Jakarta
vs. how Commons-Collections relates to Jakarta.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> Eung-ju Park wrote:
>
>> +1 for Phoenix becoming a jakarta top level project
>
>
> Given that we are not under Jakarta anymore, would that mean that having
> Phoenix as an Avalon "top level" project would be ok?
can you explain to me what is a "top level" project of a "top level"
project?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Eung-ju Park wrote:
> +1 for Phoenix becoming a jakarta top level project
Given that we are not under Jakarta anymore, would that mean that having
Phoenix as an Avalon "top level" project would be ok?
We would all agree on that.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Eung-ju Park <co...@apache.org>.
+1 for Phoenix becoming a jakarta top level project
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Donald" <pe...@apache.org>
To: <av...@jakarta.apache.org>; <av...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Hi,
I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all
parties
involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
infrastructure to a new top level project.
Below is the outline of my reasoning why I believe this to be in the best
interests of Avalon. Over the next few weeks I plan to put together a
"vision" document and proposal - if anyone else wants to help (or do it)
then
they are welcome to take over ;)
It may be best to start from the start. I initially started observing avalon
when it was pretty dead. Nothing was happening so I went away. Then all of a
sudden this Berin guy started doing stuff and then there was life. Fede and
Stefano also came back and together they kicked the tires and started the
fires.
I was building another component based server framework at the time and thus
I
used this as an opportunity to bounce ideas off Berin. At the time what I
was
writing was much more monolithic, lower abstractions and used a lot more off
the shelf components (w3c DOM/JDOM, JNDI, Properties etc). I eventually
managed to refactor into something nicer - more in the way Avalon was going.
A month or so later I came on board and stuff progressed. We started to
break
apart the monolithic avalon project into bite sized chunks that more
accurately modelled the units in which they were used. We also became able
to
actually release parts that were at different maturity levels. It was still
"big ball of mud" style programming but we were moving forward.
We regularly rewrote the whole codebase - as many as three times in one
particular month. Along with that was the flamefests - far more excited than
has been seen in Avalon for a long time. However they were of a far nicer
variety than what is now present in Avalon - at least then we were all
interested in promoting Avalon as a whole and there was mutual respect
between developers. Even when we were competing for our ideas we went out of
our way to help other - I even recall Berin helping out with JDOM stuff
which
he wasn't too fond of ;) Some of the code was not too hot but the level of
collaboration and cooperation was great.
Fast forward to now. Most of the problems arise from committers who were
added
into Avalon before they had demonstrated any capability or desire to
cooperate with the existing committers (and some to this day have not
committed a line of code). As a result there is whole codebases that are one
man jobs - a nomans land which other committers avoid like the plague.
It also seems that we have aquired that condition of "try to block
competition
via politics" which previously we had avoided. On a few occasions Stephen
has
tried to block improvements in Phoenix because it competed with his pet
container.
And thats not to mention the personal attacks that have recently become a
distinguishing quality on the avalon lists. Add that to the behaviour
regarding code ownership and it just gets messy.
So things are changing - right? Appologies have been made and Avalon may
become a TLP - which will supposedly "fix" the problems that have occured in
the past.
Well - I guess I am a big believer in actions speaking louder than words.
And
actions have not changed that much.
Rather than seeking consensus for major decisions (like becoming a TLP) we
have seen Stephen try to push through his own ideas - even when it was
obvious that a large proportion of active developers chose not to engage the
proposal, it was still sent along to the board.
Stephen still trolls the phoenix list - though I am sure he would describe
it
as enlightening users to what their missing by not choosing his "amazing
Merlin" rather than phoenix. It has got bad enough that a few people choose
to ask me support questions by personal email rather than via the public
lists because they feel uncomfortable with the way Stephen "helps". Hell -
some people have even explicitly asked me not to mention their projects in
public yet because they don't want Stephens "help".
So regardless of whether it is intentional or not Stephen is a harmful
influence on people wanting to use or develope phoenix.
Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me. It
has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to solve
some of the problems.
And then theres Nicolas claims that "Phoenix community != Avalon community,
it's quite clear to all" and that combined with his vision and discussion
that involved removing my commit privs if I did not agree with the vision
was
somewhat disturbing.
What was even more disturbing was the "cooperate or else" thread sent by
Stephen to the community list where he outlined his thoughts on how
cooperation should be done. Relevent snippet;
"What this discussion should be about is a framework we are obliged to
live with because this is this "brand" management thing - not a
discussion on a particular flame. At the end of the day - getting a
bunch of committers to get their heads together on brand is a painful
experience - UNLESS - you provide incentives to maintain a brand. How
do you do that? You create a downside that is sufficiently unattractive
that people have to work together to sort things out. The downside of
forcing re-branding is a significant downside. Its just like forking -
but heavier - forking just means that you have to work your but off to
build the community, but re-branding means investing a lot more time in
brand recognition and brand loyalty - and loosing a lot more relative to
what exists in terms of public perception. People actually do think
about the downsides of possible actions before taking particular
actions. These downsides are weighed against the overhead of solving a
problem though collaboration and other positive good sounding stuff that
we like to talk about. So before you tell me off - keep in mind that
up-sides and downsides provide real people with a sense of perspective.
Without perspective, well, you just don't get the depth."
So I can just imagine what is going to happen when we start integrating Info
into Phoenix or some other feature that competes with his toolkits.
Putting all these things together it becomes obvious that Phoenix is hurt by
staying in Avalon. The users are hurt because they are subject to trolling
and the developers are hurt because they constantly have to work around
other
people who don't participate in the development but can still cause harm.
So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
infrastructure.
This should also help the wider Avalon community because it will remove the
reason for much conflict and it will help bring the scope down to a more
manageable level.
Anyways feel free to email me on or off list with suggestions or offers to
help. Anyone who is interested in being part of this initiative should also
email me and I will make sure their name is down on the proposal. All
phoenix
devs will obviously be included but you should email me to give your
thoughts
anyways :)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------
"You can't depend on your eyes when your
imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain
-----------------------------------------------
--
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: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> *I also inform you all that I will forward all mails I get from now
>> on from Avalon committers to this list.*
>
>
> I took this extreme measure with great discomfort and sadness, because
> I was getting far too many private mails full of emotions and opinions
> instead of seeing things discussed more rationally on the mailing list.
> I needed to halt these background discussions, that IMHO have been
> part of our problem.
>
> This has now stopped, so from now on I may only suggest who has
> written me privately, about general questions that interest us all, to
> post the question to the Avalon list instead to get a reply.
>
> Thank you all for your understanding.
> Please let's keep discussions about Avalon on this list.
+1
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> *I also inform you all that I will forward all mails I get from now on
> from Avalon committers to this list.*
I took this extreme measure with great discomfort and sadness, because I
was getting far too many private mails full of emotions and opinions
instead of seeing things discussed more rationally on the mailing list.
I needed to halt these background discussions, that IMHO have been part
of our problem.
This has now stopped, so from now on I may only suggest who has written
me privately, about general questions that interest us all, to post the
question to the Avalon list instead to get a reply.
Thank you all for your understanding.
Please let's keep discussions about Avalon on this list.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:10, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> IMHO Cocoon components or Plexus are not a good example for this case,
> being them opensource Apache projects that are developing stuff *with*
> Avalon, not *for* Avalon.
Well in all cases it is not being developed for Avalon - they are being
developed because they are useful utilitys. They plan to make them was for
their own toolkits (persistence, rmi and one gui framework).
If they support our needs then I have no problems using them - we use qdox and
it was not built specifically for avalon and no avalon developers are on the
team.
If the toolkits don't meet our needs then we can move on but otherwise I see
no reason to not work with external groups.
> But IMHO I fail to see why I am leading to division. If the Avalon
> community is united, nobody, and surely not I, can divide it with a
> couple of opinions.
It only takes one.
> > Would have been much better if someone who had contributed to avalon
> > consistently over a long period had been nominated. The best candidate in
> > my opinion would have been Berin.
>
> IIUC you nominated yourself.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103706979421193&w=2
And I wouldn't want it - just that no other long term committers had nominated
themselves by that stage.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> "Interesting" edit.
No edit.
The mails were sent fully with no edit.
> Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to gain you respect.
> It is extremely poor behaviour and given the sensitive nature of the content
> it is innapropriate and undermines peoples trust in you.
You have been saying things that IMO don't correspond to the truth,
about mails I sent you. These are the mail contents verbatim, that *you*
have cited. I have not sent anything else .
> Anyways and to the claims
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>I have also recieved previous mails from you that clearly explain that
>>some development at Avalon has been going on in "private" lists. No
>>wonder some committers and I couldn't understand what was going on.
>
> Or putting it another way. Things that would have previously been developed at
> Apache are now being done outside Apache. The main reason being that Avalon
> is not much of a fun place to be involved.
>
> Metaclass was moved out because the developer who offered to continue the work
> on it but was uncomfortable working in Avalon given the environment.
>
> A few people have taken up the interceptor stuff I was talking about but they
> didn't want to do it here. There is at least three different people who all
> decided to work on it. I just made them aware of each other and they got down
> to working with each other.
>
> Another container that hosts components using A-F is undergoing development
> outside of Apache. I don't really code much on it but those who do have
> chosen to continue working on it outside Avalon until they can get a beta
> release together at which point they will hopefully announce their presence
> here ;)
>
> Even if they never come into Avalon there is nothing wrong with their
> continuing development outside of Avalon and her politics. Would you condemn
> Turbine for developing plexus? Or perhaps you will condem Cocoon if they
> choose to develope their own container? Me - I see no problem in it. I think
> it is healthy and a good sign that we are offering something useful.
IMHO Cocoon components or Plexus are not a good example for this case,
being them opensource Apache projects that are developing stuff *with*
Avalon, not *for* Avalon.
Also, they are not related to the core of Avalon development and design,
which instead "info" is inven in your intentions I suppose, since it
already has a "org.apache.avalon.framework.info" package name.
> And so one and so forth.
>
> Development only occurs off list because people don't feel comfortable doing
> it on list or don't like the environment. I am always going to provide
> volunteers with an environment that they want to work in if that is at all
> possible. You can not tell volunteers what to do, you can not force them to
> do anything. You can suggest, gently nag, prod and poke but in the end it is
> upto them how they contribute.
>
>
>> > If you don't retract your acceptance I intend to send an email to
>> > both the avalon group and the board outlining what I believe
>> > is going on and why it is not in the best interests of Avalon
>> > to rush through the proposal.
>
>
> And why did I do this ? Because your nomination would inevitably lead to
> division which is just what is occuring.
That is your opinion and I respect it.
But IMHO I fail to see why I am leading to division. If the Avalon
community is united, nobody, and surely not I, can divide it with a
couple of opinions.
> Would have been much better if someone who had contributed to avalon
> consistently over a long period had been nominated. The best candidate in my
> opinion would have been Berin.
IIUC you nominated yourself.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103706979421193&w=2
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:52, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:32, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> > > >
> > > > "Interesting" edit.
> > > >
> > > > Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to gain
> > > > you respect. It is extremely poor behaviour and given the
> >
> > sensitive
> >
> > > > nature of the content it is innapropriate and undermines peoples
> > > > trust in you.
> > >
> > > Given that you paraphrased statements Nicola had been
> > > writing in his emails to you, I think he was abslutely
> > > right in presenting exactly what he had written, and
> >
> > presenting that
> >
> > > in the correct context for all to judge.
> >
> > It wasn't the correct context.
>
> Then could you provide that context?
Nope - I think it is deplorable behaviour to send private emails conversations
to a public list. My opinions should be fairly well known anyways so make
some guesses ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and
it binds the universe together ...
-- Carl Zwanzig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:32, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> > >
> > > "Interesting" edit.
> > >
> > > Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to gain
> > > you respect. It is extremely poor behaviour and given the
> sensitive
> > > nature of the content it is innapropriate and undermines peoples
> > > trust in you.
> >
> > Given that you paraphrased statements Nicola had been
> > writing in his emails to you, I think he was abslutely
> > right in presenting exactly what he had written, and
> presenting that
> > in the correct context for all to judge.
>
> It wasn't the correct context.
Then could you provide that context?
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:32, Leo Sutic wrote:
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> >
> > "Interesting" edit.
> >
> > Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to
> > gain you respect. It is extremely poor behaviour and given
> > the sensitive nature of the content it is innapropriate and
> > undermines peoples trust in you.
>
> Given that you paraphrased statements Nicola had been
> writing in his emails to you, I think he was abslutely
> right in presenting exactly what he had written, and
> presenting that in the correct context for all to judge.
It wasn't the correct context.
> Don't bring up what Nicola has written in private emails
> unless you want him to bring up what you wrote.
Alternatively never trust him enough to write to him private emails.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------*
| Trying is the first step to failure. |
| So never try, Lisa - Homer Jay Simpson |
*------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
>
> "Interesting" edit.
>
> Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to
> gain you respect. It is extremely poor behaviour and given
> the sensitive nature of the content it is innapropriate and
> undermines peoples trust in you.
Given that you paraphrased statements Nicola had been
writing in his emails to you, I think he was abslutely
right in presenting exactly what he had written, and
presenting that in the correct context for all to judge.
Don't bring up what Nicola has written in private emails
unless you want him to bring up what you wrote.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
"Interesting" edit.
Forwarding personal emails is not something that is going to gain you respect.
It is extremely poor behaviour and given the sensitive nature of the content
it is innapropriate and undermines peoples trust in you.
Anyways and to the claims
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I have also recieved previous mails from you that clearly explain that
> some development at Avalon has been going on in "private" lists. No
> wonder some committers and I couldn't understand what was going on.
Or putting it another way. Things that would have previously been developed at
Apache are now being done outside Apache. The main reason being that Avalon
is not much of a fun place to be involved.
Metaclass was moved out because the developer who offered to continue the work
on it but was uncomfortable working in Avalon given the environment.
A few people have taken up the interceptor stuff I was talking about but they
didn't want to do it here. There is at least three different people who all
decided to work on it. I just made them aware of each other and they got down
to working with each other.
Another container that hosts components using A-F is undergoing development
outside of Apache. I don't really code much on it but those who do have
chosen to continue working on it outside Avalon until they can get a beta
release together at which point they will hopefully announce their presence
here ;)
Even if they never come into Avalon there is nothing wrong with their
continuing development outside of Avalon and her politics. Would you condemn
Turbine for developing plexus? Or perhaps you will condem Cocoon if they
choose to develope their own container? Me - I see no problem in it. I think
it is healthy and a good sign that we are offering something useful.
And so one and so forth.
Development only occurs off list because people don't feel comfortable doing
it on list or don't like the environment. I am always going to provide
volunteers with an environment that they want to work in if that is at all
possible. You can not tell volunteers what to do, you can not force them to
do anything. You can suggest, gently nag, prod and poke but in the end it is
upto them how they contribute.
> > If you don't retract your acceptance I intend to send an email to
> > both the avalon group and the board outlining what I believe
> > is going on and why it is not in the best interests of Avalon
> > to rush through the proposal.
And why did I do this ? Because your nomination would inevitably lead to
division which is just what is occuring.
Would have been much better if someone who had contributed to avalon
consistently over a long period had been nominated. The best candidate in my
opinion would have been Berin.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--------------------------------------------------
Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
--------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
[...]
> And then theres Nicolas claims that "Phoenix community != Avalon community,
> it's quite clear to all" and that combined with his vision and discussion
> that involved removing my commit privs if I did not agree with the vision was
> somewhat disturbing.
:-/
I have been trying at my best, as small as it is, to help in this
process, by trying also to follow indication from people like Greg Stein
that were posted here on the list.
I have also tried to keep a dialog open with you and Stephen, and to
understand all needs.
Since you mention it, and give it the opposite connotation that I'd
given it, here are the mails I sent you regarding these specific comments.
I have also recieved previous mails from you that clearly explain that
some development at Avalon has been going on in "private" lists. No
wonder some committers and I couldn't understand what was going on.
I have kept some Apache and board members informed of my actions at all
times, and I have nothing to hide.
Let everyone judge by himself.
There are many other mails you sent me, but these are the only ones you
cite.
If anyone has anything to ask you about or me about these, please do it
here, on the public list.
*I also inform you all that I will forward all mails I get from now on
from Avalon committers to this list.*
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Info Design
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:42:34 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
Organization: Apache Software Foundation
To: Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
References: <20...@apache.org>
<20...@apache.org> <3D...@apache.org>
<20...@apache.org>
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:54, you wrote:
>
>>Phoenix community != Avalon community, it's quite clear to all.
>
> Not clear at all. I would think you would be least likely to
> try and divide the Avalon community that way.
I'm stating what many believe is a fact, not a tentative to divide.
I will not do it further.
Below I'll reply to your points with a mail from Greg Stein.
You are disregarding the fact that design should restart with consensus
now, not majority votes.
>>I would humbly propose you this line of action:
>>
>>1) wait for the creation of the PMC
>>2) in the meantime continue on info and do whatever you need to in
Phoenix
>>3) with the new PMC we discuss about using info as the proposal for an
>>info package in framework, with *technical* discussions on it and
>>consensus. It's not rocket science, it will be possible.
>>4) we have info in framework and you can switch Phoenix to it
>>
>>Reasonable?
>
>
> nope. The PMC is not meant to deal with technical issues. Thus it
should make
> no difference. Chances However given that some want to ignore this
and thus
> the whole point is to go ahead before the PMC is formed so that no
> blocks are put in place.
Greg Stein wrote:
"
The question for the new PMC to answer is: how do we start over to
create a design thatis community driven?
"
> If you want to block it then you are welcome to do so when (if it) it
goes up
> for vote.
Greg Stein wrote:
"
I think it was Costin that said it best: vetoes shouldn't be used to
steer the design. This is why I suggested (as Steve mentioned above)
that the Avalon project start over. As a community, decide what the heck
Avalon is and get it assembled. Either from old parts, or newly
developed parts. But ignore the design from the past and come up with an
"Avalon 2".
"
> It needs a majority to get accepted and if that can't be achieved
> then component model be forever more sundered. At least a few
containers will
> be compatible with info and the majority of Avalon components. It
would be
> preferrable that all of them be compatible but if that can't be done
then so
> be it.
Greg Stein wrote:
"
I would also recommend that the PMC disallow forks or "revolutions." Get
the community to work together, rather than individually. If somebody is
peeved enough at the community's direction, they can put their fork in
other parts of the ASF or outside the ASF. But don't allow internal
forks until you've at least got one release behind you. This notion of
personal playgrounds and forks and whatnot has been part of the "avalon
problem".
"
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Info Design
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:59:20 +0100
From: Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>
Reply-To: nicolaken@apache.org
To: Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>
References: <20...@apache.org>
<20...@apache.org> <3D...@apache.org>
<20...@apache.org>
Peter Donald wrote:
>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to start with a clean slate with the help of the oversight
>>>> of the board. If anyone will behave badly, he will be kicked out.
>>>> But if we don't communicate openly on these things now, I don't
>>>> see what the solution will be.
[...]
> If you don't retract your acceptance I intend to send an email to
> both the avalon group and the board outlining what I believe
> is going on and why it is not in the best interests of Avalon
> to rush through the proposal.
I will not retract my acceptance, and I suggest you to stop this behaviour.
This is the second mail you send me about "suggesting" me to retract,
while I've recieved votes from Avalon commiters on the Avalon mailing
list that had not even been requested. If you have something else to
say, we are all listening on the Avalon mailing lists.
I suggest you to restart partecipating in Avalon on the Apache mailing
lists rather than forking the community on private mails, and make all
other Avalon committers aware of these private Avalon development threads.
If anyone, and that means you too, will not follow the rules and
continue pursuing this behaviour as usual business, he could have his
committer privileges revoked.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
>not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
>involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
>things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
>infrastructure to a new top level project.
>
>Below is the outline of my reasoning why I believe this to be in the best
>interests of Avalon. Over the next few weeks I plan to put together a
>"vision" document and proposal - if anyone else wants to help (or do it) then
>they are welcome to take over ;)
>
>It may be best to start from the start. I initially started observing avalon
>when it was pretty dead. Nothing was happening so I went away. Then all of a
>sudden this Berin guy started doing stuff and then there was life. Fede and
>Stefano also came back and together they kicked the tires and started the
>fires.
>
>I was building another component based server framework at the time and thus I
>used this as an opportunity to bounce ideas off Berin. At the time what I was
>writing was much more monolithic, lower abstractions and used a lot more off
>the shelf components (w3c DOM/JDOM, JNDI, Properties etc). I eventually
>managed to refactor into something nicer - more in the way Avalon was going.
>
>A month or so later I came on board and stuff progressed. We started to break
>apart the monolithic avalon project into bite sized chunks that more
>accurately modelled the units in which they were used. We also became able to
>actually release parts that were at different maturity levels. It was still
>"big ball of mud" style programming but we were moving forward.
>
>We regularly rewrote the whole codebase - as many as three times in one
>particular month. Along with that was the flamefests - far more excited than
>has been seen in Avalon for a long time. However they were of a far nicer
>variety than what is now present in Avalon - at least then we were all
>interested in promoting Avalon as a whole and there was mutual respect
>between developers. Even when we were competing for our ideas we went out of
>our way to help other - I even recall Berin helping out with JDOM stuff which
>he wasn't too fond of ;) Some of the code was not too hot but the level of
>collaboration and cooperation was great.
>
That history is fairly accurate. It is important to note that there was
also a lot more discussion
*before* things got committed to CVS. The recent mindshare battles
fought in CVS is very bad
all the way around.
>Fast forward to now. Most of the problems arise from committers who were added
>into Avalon before they had demonstrated any capability or desire to
>cooperate with the existing committers (and some to this day have not
>committed a line of code). As a result there is whole codebases that are one
>man jobs - a nomans land which other committers avoid like the plague.
>
>It also seems that we have aquired that condition of "try to block competition
>via politics" which previously we had avoided. On a few occasions Stephen has
>tried to block improvements in Phoenix because it competed with his pet
>container.
>
>And thats not to mention the personal attacks that have recently become a
>distinguishing quality on the avalon lists. Add that to the behaviour
>regarding code ownership and it just gets messy.
>
>So things are changing - right? Appologies have been made and Avalon may
>become a TLP - which will supposedly "fix" the problems that have occured in
>the past.
>
Many of the problems are social in nature. The TLP will help provide a
mechanism to resolve these
issues. I fear though that the PMC can be abused just as well as it can
be used.
>Rather than seeking consensus for major decisions (like becoming a TLP) we
>have seen Stephen try to push through his own ideas - even when it was
>obvious that a large proportion of active developers chose not to engage the
>proposal, it was still sent along to the board.
>
I don't like the quick timeframe at all.
>Also discussion about the way the "new" avalon will operate disturbs me. It
>has been implied that the PMC will be making development decisions to solve
>some of the problems.
>
I have a lot to catch up on. What "new" avalon are we talking about?
>Putting all these things together it becomes obvious that Phoenix is hurt by
>staying in Avalon. The users are hurt because they are subject to trolling
>and the developers are hurt because they constantly have to work around other
>people who don't participate in the development but can still cause harm.
>
>So the solution? The solution would be moving phoenix development out of
>avalon into a product-centric project focused on Phoenix and supporting
>infrastructure.
>
If it would be better for Phoenix to become its own TLP, then I will
support it. However, I would be
reluctant to support it if the cheif issue is social. If there is real
technical benefit to the Phoenix TLP,
then +1.
---------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
1st month Free!
Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
many good points. reply inline.
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 21:19, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:34, Leo Simons wrote:
> > I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
> > bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
> > between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
> > have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
>
<snip/>
> I saw that synergy as being great and I believed that if the same could be
> true with Phoenix then Avalon would be sooo much better off. This was
> starting to happen. We had our first release and if we continue down this
> path we will soon have a very nice platform - which will hopefully channel
> some more interest back into Avalon. I had hoped to keep this internal to
> Avalon because it would create closer ties.
my thoughts too....
> If that can't be then so be it.
agreed. But if it "can't be" because of a social conflict (which is how
it really does seem to me now), I think the conflict should be resolved.
> However the response so far has been encouraging. Mostly it has been of the
> form "about time!", "do it anyway", "easier sell to boss" etc.
=)
> As to overlapping charters. It is true that there is a degree of overlap - the
> new project would differ in that it is product-centric. It would all be about
> the development of a single container and thus many things that would be in
> scope for Avalon will be out of scope for Phoenix and vice versa. It is
> expected that Phoenix will still use A-F and parts of Avalon Excalibur and
> that there will be a high degree of cross talk.
makes sense. IMHO, avalon should try and be about a single container, a
minimal reference implementation....but that needs a definition of
container first....we've said all this before :D
> The end result will be two communities but they need not be conflicting but
> can cooperate. Some believe that there are already two communities in Avalon
> - in which case the split is more than overdue anyways.
:( I don't think there are two communities.
> > I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
> > software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
> > become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
> > use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
> > competition is internal).
>
> Not wanting competition is NOT a good reason to try and block said
> competition. After all that has happened in Avalon I would have hoped that
> this would be obvious. Competition should be encouraged, embraced and brought
> into the fold. If merges can not happen for technical reasons then obviously
> different markets were being served by competing codebase and thus they may
> not really compete but compliment.
totally agree. The difference I see is between having competition within
a community (good) and competition between communities (bad).
As long as avalon and phoenix remain part of the same community where
competition is constructive the most important thing that changes when
phoenix moves out is the phoenix URL. From your original e-mail it seems
like you see the competition as destructive, and that is (and will
remain) the problem to fix.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
many good points. reply inline.
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 21:19, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:34, Leo Simons wrote:
> > I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
> > bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
> > between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
> > have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
>
<snip/>
> I saw that synergy as being great and I believed that if the same could be
> true with Phoenix then Avalon would be sooo much better off. This was
> starting to happen. We had our first release and if we continue down this
> path we will soon have a very nice platform - which will hopefully channel
> some more interest back into Avalon. I had hoped to keep this internal to
> Avalon because it would create closer ties.
my thoughts too....
> If that can't be then so be it.
agreed. But if it "can't be" because of a social conflict (which is how
it really does seem to me now), I think the conflict should be resolved.
> However the response so far has been encouraging. Mostly it has been of the
> form "about time!", "do it anyway", "easier sell to boss" etc.
=)
> As to overlapping charters. It is true that there is a degree of overlap - the
> new project would differ in that it is product-centric. It would all be about
> the development of a single container and thus many things that would be in
> scope for Avalon will be out of scope for Phoenix and vice versa. It is
> expected that Phoenix will still use A-F and parts of Avalon Excalibur and
> that there will be a high degree of cross talk.
makes sense. IMHO, avalon should try and be about a single container, a
minimal reference implementation....but that needs a definition of
container first....we've said all this before :D
> The end result will be two communities but they need not be conflicting but
> can cooperate. Some believe that there are already two communities in Avalon
> - in which case the split is more than overdue anyways.
:( I don't think there are two communities.
> > I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
> > software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
> > become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
> > use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
> > competition is internal).
>
> Not wanting competition is NOT a good reason to try and block said
> competition. After all that has happened in Avalon I would have hoped that
> this would be obvious. Competition should be encouraged, embraced and brought
> into the fold. If merges can not happen for technical reasons then obviously
> different markets were being served by competing codebase and thus they may
> not really compete but compliment.
totally agree. The difference I see is between having competition within
a community (good) and competition between communities (bad).
As long as avalon and phoenix remain part of the same community where
competition is constructive the most important thing that changes when
phoenix moves out is the phoenix URL. From your original e-mail it seems
like you see the competition as destructive, and that is (and will
remain) the problem to fix.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:34, Leo Simons wrote:
> I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
> bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
> between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
> have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
Phoenix has been in line for graduating out of Avalon for a very long time. It
has had the momentum, community and support for a very long time. I have
worked to discourage that behaviour through a number of different strategies.
The phoenix-dev and apps lists were specifically created to give extra space
and to avoid a split. Everytime the issue gets raised I would always suggest
we put it off to when Phoenix was a released product or to some nebulous
future point in time.
The main reason was this was because Avalon has a severe brand management
problem. Before "Avalon" existed - when "Avalon" was just a code name for a
version of the the "Java Apache Server Framework" - it had problems then. I
expected that Phoenix would eventually start to gather some good karma/brand
and it would rub off on Avalon proper. This would lead to a better
development environment and a more active Avalon community.
Think of it as similar to Cocoon. Many of the successes of Avalon have been
tied to Cocoon successes. Many developers first learn about Avalon from
Cocoon. And many Avalon decisions were made for the benefit of Cocoon.
I saw that synergy as being great and I believed that if the same could be
true with Phoenix then Avalon would be sooo much better off. This was
starting to happen. We had our first release and if we continue down this
path we will soon have a very nice platform - which will hopefully channel
some more interest back into Avalon. I had hoped to keep this internal to
Avalon because it would create closer ties. If that can't be then so be it.
However the response so far has been encouraging. Mostly it has been of the
form "about time!", "do it anyway", "easier sell to boss" etc.
As to overlapping charters. It is true that there is a degree of overlap - the
new project would differ in that it is product-centric. It would all be about
the development of a single container and thus many things that would be in
scope for Avalon will be out of scope for Phoenix and vice versa. It is
expected that Phoenix will still use A-F and parts of Avalon Excalibur and
that there will be a high degree of cross talk.
The end result will be two communities but they need not be conflicting but
can cooperate. Some believe that there are already two communities in Avalon
- in which case the split is more than overdue anyways.
> I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
> software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
> become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
> use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
> competition is internal).
Not wanting competition is NOT a good reason to try and block said
competition. After all that has happened in Avalon I would have hoped that
this would be obvious. Competition should be encouraged, embraced and brought
into the fold. If merges can not happen for technical reasons then obviously
different markets were being served by competing codebase and thus they may
not really compete but compliment.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
"Liberty means responsibility. That is
why most men dread it." - Locke
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 13:13, Greg Stein wrote:
> In article <10...@lsd.student.utwente.nl>, "Leo Simons"
> <le...@apache.org> wrote:
> >...
> > All that said, if a majority of the phoenix developers does want to
> > split off,
>
> The "phoenix developers" == the "avalon developers" as far as
> CVSROOT/avail is concerned. But if you rephrased as "the interested
> developers", then okay...
granted. I don't think the distinction would matter...I suspect if "the
avalon developers actively working on the phoenix codebase" would all
really want to move that codebase elsewhere, then "other avalon
developers that are not working on that codebase" would accept their
decision, which in turn I suspect would lead to PMC (whether Jakarta or
Avalon) support. If I were the board, I would then give that PMC a hard
time justifying the move :D
> > I think it is the apache way to not be in the way.
>
> The phrase "apache way" can be used for Good or for Bad :-).
Okay. Bad choice of words. Just had a nice ring to it....
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
In article <10...@lsd.student.utwente.nl>, "Leo Simons"
<le...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> All that said, if a majority of the phoenix developers does want to
> split off,
The "phoenix developers" == the "avalon developers" as far as
CVSROOT/avail is concerned. But if you rephrased as "the interested
developers", then okay...
> I think it is the apache way to not be in the way.
The phrase "apache way" can be used for Good or for Bad :-). Yes, the
general idea is to not get in people's way. But no, I don't think it means
supporting divisiveness and fragmentation.
I will point out that Phoenix will fall under the reponsibility of the
Avalon PMC (as will all jakarta-avalon-* CVS repositories), should the
Board approve the Avalon PMC resolution. Breaking it out will require the
support of that PMC at a minimum. Then it'll need some kind of support
from the Board to approve a new PMC to oversee Phoenix.
-g
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 22:34, Leo Simons wrote:
> I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
> bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
> between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
> have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
Phoenix has been in line for graduating out of Avalon for a very long time. It
has had the momentum, community and support for a very long time. I have
worked to discourage that behaviour through a number of different strategies.
The phoenix-dev and apps lists were specifically created to give extra space
and to avoid a split. Everytime the issue gets raised I would always suggest
we put it off to when Phoenix was a released product or to some nebulous
future point in time.
The main reason was this was because Avalon has a severe brand management
problem. Before "Avalon" existed - when "Avalon" was just a code name for a
version of the the "Java Apache Server Framework" - it had problems then. I
expected that Phoenix would eventually start to gather some good karma/brand
and it would rub off on Avalon proper. This would lead to a better
development environment and a more active Avalon community.
Think of it as similar to Cocoon. Many of the successes of Avalon have been
tied to Cocoon successes. Many developers first learn about Avalon from
Cocoon. And many Avalon decisions were made for the benefit of Cocoon.
I saw that synergy as being great and I believed that if the same could be
true with Phoenix then Avalon would be sooo much better off. This was
starting to happen. We had our first release and if we continue down this
path we will soon have a very nice platform - which will hopefully channel
some more interest back into Avalon. I had hoped to keep this internal to
Avalon because it would create closer ties. If that can't be then so be it.
However the response so far has been encouraging. Mostly it has been of the
form "about time!", "do it anyway", "easier sell to boss" etc.
As to overlapping charters. It is true that there is a degree of overlap - the
new project would differ in that it is product-centric. It would all be about
the development of a single container and thus many things that would be in
scope for Avalon will be out of scope for Phoenix and vice versa. It is
expected that Phoenix will still use A-F and parts of Avalon Excalibur and
that there will be a high degree of cross talk.
The end result will be two communities but they need not be conflicting but
can cooperate. Some believe that there are already two communities in Avalon
- in which case the split is more than overdue anyways.
> I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
> software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
> become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
> use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
> competition is internal).
Not wanting competition is NOT a good reason to try and block said
competition. After all that has happened in Avalon I would have hoped that
this would be obvious. Competition should be encouraged, embraced and brought
into the fold. If merges can not happen for technical reasons then obviously
different markets were being served by competing codebase and thus they may
not really compete but compliment.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
"Liberty means responsibility. That is
why most men dread it." - Locke
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 09:18, Peter Donald wrote:
> I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
> not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
> involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
> things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
> infrastructure to a new top level project.
I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
competition is internal).
I think you could be right though that splitting of phoenix would be
good for the avalon developer community (as it has apparently become
difficult for some developers in that community to work together and the
community is failing to resolve those issues (taking this proposal as
evidence of that)), and this could then of course be good for the
software that comes out of that community, which could then be good for
apache as a whole and users of that software.
On this I still second the words of Greg Stein, which I'll paraphrase
and summarize as "the avalon developers need to learn how to work
together".
As an aside, I would say your depiction of recent history is not
accurate, but whether it is or not probably does not matter.
All that said, if a majority of the phoenix developers does want to
split off, I think it is the apache way to not be in the way.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 09:18, Peter Donald wrote:
> I had hoped that it would not get to this point but unfortunately that does
> not seem to be the case. However it looks like the best thing for all parties
> involved is to break up Avalon into different projects. One of the first
> things I am going to propose is the graduation of Phoenix and related
> infrastructure to a new top level project.
I personally think that making phoenix a new top level project would be
bad for apache as a whole because of the grossly overlapping concerns
between any such phoenix project and a possible avalon project; we would
have rather permanent fragmentation of community.
I think that this would be bad from the perspective of users of apache
software because it becomes difficult to choose between what would
become competing projects (right now, we as avalon community can say "go
use Avalon Phoenix or Avalon ECM, this-and-that version" and the
competition is internal).
I think you could be right though that splitting of phoenix would be
good for the avalon developer community (as it has apparently become
difficult for some developers in that community to work together and the
community is failing to resolve those issues (taking this proposal as
evidence of that)), and this could then of course be good for the
software that comes out of that community, which could then be good for
apache as a whole and users of that software.
On this I still second the words of Greg Stein, which I'll paraphrase
and summarize as "the avalon developers need to learn how to work
together".
As an aside, I would say your depiction of recent history is not
accurate, but whether it is or not probably does not matter.
All that said, if a majority of the phoenix developers does want to
split off, I think it is the apache way to not be in the way.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:14, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> >>>Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are
> >>>present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger
> >>>community in such an environment.
> >>
> >>Uh, yeah, route around constraints instead of working toward creating
> >>consensus and fix them.
> >
> > Actually the constraints come from above - the board (or at least Sam?)
> > wants to see that projects flatten permissions and privs. So when you
> > nominate someone for the work they are doing on phoenix then you nominate
> > for the whole of Avalon and vice versa.
>
> No, I was talking about the fact that you seem to see this community as
> a constraint to phoenix evolution and you want to route around that
> instead of constructively build consensus.
I would love to see Avalon migrate to something better. The problem is that
"better" is hard to define, existing projects (mainly cocoon) will have to
change in most definitions of better and worst yet - egos.
If you remember back to when I first started messing around with Avalon. The
very first flame fest that I was involved in - my initial reaction was what?
Thats right I suggested that we remove all @author tags from the source
files. Why? Because the flame was caused purely because of ego. The technical
better soution was adopted but only after the author whos code was replaced
had ranted on. Who was that again?
I have said it before and likely will say it again. Removing the author tags
in framework at least would go a good way to reducing the ego induced
silliness that seems rampant here. It was here from way back before I was
involved.
> How can one possibly like phoenix and hate avalon?
Q: How can you like Cocoon and hate avalon?
Q: How can you like Phoenix and hate avalon?
A: Features useful - approach may not be.
Not everyone is as academically orientated as you are and many people have a
much more pragmatic approach to things. Thus the overly complex farting
around that sometimes is required due to Avalons "flexability" is not
appreciated. Low coupling, rapid development and ease of refactoring are
often higher priorities for some. I recognize the value of Avalon over the
long term life of a project but I also am aware that in some circumstances
there are better aprroaches.
> I don't want Phoenix to become another Avalon: I would like you to work
> with us instead of against us.
Thats funny - I thought that we were part of the us and you were one of the
them.
Either way I always thought that one of the best incentives to not fork was
the ability to fork on a whim. That pretty much holds true for majority of
cases I have seen. What leads you to believe differently?
> > Let me remind you that you have not been active in a constructive way in
> > Avalon for a long time.
>
> True and that was a mistake and I take the blame for that. I left Avalon
> as a single project and when I came back there were *tons* of internally
> fragmented pieces, including a logging toolkit, for &deity;'s sake!
Well - you were the person who got me to move logkit into Avalon - it was in
about 9 months before you left. The rest of it was partially done so that we
were capable of delivering a release for Cocoon - IIRC we asked your opinion
and you did not have anything bad to say about it then.
> But this doesn't mean that now that I have more energy to invest on
> this, I can't go back and try to "fix" things that appear totally broken
> to me.
As long as you respect what the rest of us believe then that is fine.
Last time you came back to "fix" things, several people commented on how very
JDD you had become. If you have come back to help improve the Avalon project
then you are welcome - however if you have come back to fix all the problems
that occured since you have left ...
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------*
| Trying is the first step to failure. |
| So never try, Lisa - Homer Jay Simpson |
*------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:50, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>Besides, are these other unhealthy development communities being
>>proposed for top level project?
>
>
> It is proposed that all jakarta projects will eventually move out in time.
What has been proposed is that the board will be willing to consider
projects that want to move from jakarta to top level. But they will be
judged from a community health perspective.
I don't get to vote on this, only the board does, but my suggestion
would be *not* to move Phoenix out of Avalon because:
1) it would hurt the creation of a single and healthy avalon community
2) the phoenix development community is basically a one-man show and
if the showman leaves the project dies has a reasonable chance to die.
3) given past history, I'd be seriously afraid of Phoenix forking the
Avalon framework internally for its own needs.
>>>Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are
>>>present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger
>>>community in such an environment.
>>
>>Uh, yeah, route around constraints instead of working toward creating
>>consensus and fix them.
>
>
> Actually the constraints come from above - the board (or at least Sam?) wants
> to see that projects flatten permissions and privs. So when you nominate
> someone for the work they are doing on phoenix then you nominate for the
> whole of Avalon and vice versa.
No, I was talking about the fact that you seem to see this community as
a constraint to phoenix evolution and you want to route around that
instead of constructively build consensus.
> A few times in the past people have pointed out that they feel uncomfortable
> voting on people that they never interact with or have seen in action. Some
> avalon committers are not active on avalon-dev, others are not active on
> phoenix-dev. The most interesting anecdote is that at least one phoenix
> committer got nominated and voted in on avalon-dev without knowing about it
> because he didn't subscribe to that list.
Another reason to blast phoenix-dev and get back on a single avalon
community (as it should be).
> There have also been a couple of times in the past (and one currently) where I
> want to nominate someone because of the contributions they have made to the
> phoenix based parts in Avalon. However they have not necessarily shown any
> awareness or want to contribute to Avalon as a whole. One person in
> particular had a fairly negative view of the rest of Avalon but liked
> phoenix. If these people were nominated it would definetly be good for
> phoenix but may not be good from Avalons point of view.
How can one possibly like phoenix and hate avalon? don't you see this as
already something wrong? don't you see that phoenix has already walked
over that forking borderline a little?
I don't want Phoenix to become another Avalon: I would like you to work
with us instead of against us.
>>What a constructive way to create an open and healthy community that can
>>stand diversity and improve on it.
>
>
> I am not sure that sarcasm is needed here. I thought you had come back to
> "fix" avalon and sarcasm is not a very good way to do it.
Sarcasm is a good way to express how sick and tired I am of people
deciding that it's easy to fork away rather than discuss and talk.
>
>>>The only reason I have discouraged such a move in the past is because I
>>>think that keeping it close to Avalon is because it would hopefully get
>>>Avalon more exposure.
>>
>>funny, I feel the exact opposite.
>
> Let me remind you that you have not been active in a constructive way in
> Avalon for a long time.
True and that was a mistake and I take the blame for that. I left Avalon
as a single project and when I came back there were *tons* of internally
fragmented pieces, including a logging toolkit, for &deity;'s sake!
It felt bad, but I also knew that I didn't have any right to say
anything on something that happened when I wasn't there. And I keep this
attitude.
But this doesn't mean that now that I have more energy to invest on
this, I can't go back and try to "fix" things that appear totally broken
to me.
One of this is having multiple avalon implementations, so instead of
forking them away and increasing the chance of them forking away the
framework with them, I want to see people in the same room and start
talking code, not bullshit about what can't be done.
Sure, the attitude of some people has to change in order for consensus
to be reached but I want Avalon healthy and solid and diverse and
unified, because I care about it.
Remember: Avalon is a mythological place. One that can never be reached,
but only searched for. It's a pulsion, not a real destination.
If each one of us searches in a different direction, the chance of
seeing the quest surviving over time diminishes drastically.
So, either people join this 'fellowship' and create consensus on where
it should go looking for Avalon, or they go their own way. But not with
their Apache hat on.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:50, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Besides, are these other unhealthy development communities being
> proposed for top level project?
It is proposed that all jakarta projects will eventually move out in time.
> > Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are
> > present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger
> > community in such an environment.
>
> Uh, yeah, route around constraints instead of working toward creating
> consensus and fix them.
Actually the constraints come from above - the board (or at least Sam?) wants
to see that projects flatten permissions and privs. So when you nominate
someone for the work they are doing on phoenix then you nominate for the
whole of Avalon and vice versa.
A few times in the past people have pointed out that they feel uncomfortable
voting on people that they never interact with or have seen in action. Some
avalon committers are not active on avalon-dev, others are not active on
phoenix-dev. The most interesting anecdote is that at least one phoenix
committer got nominated and voted in on avalon-dev without knowing about it
because he didn't subscribe to that list.
There have also been a couple of times in the past (and one currently) where I
want to nominate someone because of the contributions they have made to the
phoenix based parts in Avalon. However they have not necessarily shown any
awareness or want to contribute to Avalon as a whole. One person in
particular had a fairly negative view of the rest of Avalon but liked
phoenix. If these people were nominated it would definetly be good for
phoenix but may not be good from Avalons point of view.
> What a constructive way to create an open and healthy community that can
> stand diversity and improve on it.
I am not sure that sarcasm is needed here. I thought you had come back to
"fix" avalon and sarcasm is not a very good way to do it.
> > The only reason I have discouraged such a move in the past is because I
> > think that keeping it close to Avalon is because it would hopefully get
> > Avalon more exposure.
>
> funny, I feel the exact opposite.
Let me remind you that you have not been active in a constructive way in
Avalon for a long time.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------------*
| An expert is someone who knows everything about the |
| topic except for its place in the world. |
*------------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
As a consumer of Avalon technologies, and whose project uses Phoenix, I
consider it to be a part of the Avalon project. I don't believe that
separating the Phoenix container from the rest of Avalon benefits anyone,
and I am concerned that such action would result in more of a fork and
divergence of interfaces from top to bottom. Nor do I believe that a move
would benefit the building of community.
Moving Phoenix seems to me a tacit statement or admission that the two
groups are unwilling to work together in a constructive fashion, rather than
a step towards building a stronger Avalon community.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:48, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>Leif Mortenson wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Hammant wrote:
>>>
>>>>+1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>>>
>>>It was pointed out that I had not yet voted on this issue.
>>>I am also +1 for promoting Phoenix to a top level project.
>>
>>-1
>>
>>The ASF values diverse and healthy development communities rather than
>>codebases. Phoenix doesn't have one.
>
>
> It has a far more healthy development community than many of the other jakarta
> codebases.
Really? like what.
Besides, are these other unhealthy development communities being
proposed for top level project?
> Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are
> present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger
> community in such an environment.
Uh, yeah, route around constraints instead of working toward creating
consensus and fix them.
What a constructive way to create an open and healthy community that can
stand diversity and improve on it.
> The only reason I have discouraged such a move in the past is because I think
> that keeping it close to Avalon is because it would hopefully get Avalon more
> exposure.
funny, I feel the exact opposite.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 04:48, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Leif Mortenson wrote:
> > Paul Hammant wrote:
> >> +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
> >
> > It was pointed out that I had not yet voted on this issue.
> > I am also +1 for promoting Phoenix to a top level project.
>
> -1
>
> The ASF values diverse and healthy development communities rather than
> codebases. Phoenix doesn't have one.
It has a far more healthy development community than many of the other jakarta
codebases. Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are
present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger
community in such an environment.
The only reason I have discouraged such a move in the past is because I think
that keeping it close to Avalon is because it would hopefully get Avalon more
exposure.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don't take life too seriously --
you'll never get out of it alive.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 09:48 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Leif Mortenson wrote:
>> Paul Hammant wrote:
>>> +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>>>
>> It was pointed out that I had not yet voted on this issue.
>> I am also +1 for promoting Phoenix to a top level project.
>
> -1
>
> The ASF values diverse and healthy development communities rather than
> codebases. Phoenix doesn't have one.
After discussions with Stefano, I must echo his -1 on a Phoenix move to
top-level. In the future, maybe, but the other active committers (me
included) must play a more active role in its development for such a
move to be sustainable.
I think Phoenix will do well as a sub-project of the new Avalon PMC.
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>> +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>>
> It was pointed out that I had not yet voted on this issue.
> I am also +1 for promoting Phoenix to a top level project.
-1
The ASF values diverse and healthy development communities rather than
codebases. Phoenix doesn't have one.
If Phoenix has to move, the only place I see is to move it in
incubator.apache.org.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>+1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>
It was pointed out that I had not yet voted on this issue.
I am also +1 for promoting Phoenix to a top level project.
Cheers,
Leif
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>+1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>
>
> As well ....
>
> * Excalibur bits go to Commons or elsewhere, apart from the bits used by one or other container,
> which go with that container.
As well as Cornerstone stuff IMHO.
This seems to have a good reception on the Turbine list too and by Peter
Donald which is on the Commons PMC.
> * Merlin leaves Avalon CVS.
Why is this :-?
It has been proposed that is go in a ./scratchpad dir, and I don't see
why it has to be kicked out.
The same should IMHO be applied for all other containers except Phoenix
which is live and well and ECM (in graveyard mode?).
> * Logkit goes to top level?
I see it as an Avalon Component, thus to go into Commons, but other
views and suggestions are welcome.
> Avalon becomes Avalon-Framework, which I've said over and over again is the only level at which
> compataibility between containers is guaranteed (and that we all agree on). Some containers have
> xml component lacing, some another type of xml lacing, yet others have _no_ meta data. All are
> fine. Focus people.
This is in line with my proposal.
> No people from the new phoenix group do not have automatic rights on commit to Avalon. If they
> were there (committing before) they remain IMHO.
I don't see why.
Actually IMVHO exactly the opposite seems more sensible.
IE all Phoenix committers should remain committers also in framework if
they wish to, while I would think that committers that have not
partecipated in Phoenix would not have automatic rights on Phoenix.
As I have already told Peter, I won't ask to "remain" committer of
Phoenix, because I have never really partecipated in it with actual code.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>+1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>>
>
>As well ....
>
>
> * Merlin leaves Avalon CVS.
>
>
-1
At this time the Merlin application is evolving, it is being evaluated
by a lot of people - the immediate priorities concern refactoring of the
type management system along the lines Berlin suggested, improvements
and seperation of profile/appliance semanitics along the lines Gary
suggested. Making sure that the content in excalibur/meta is functionaly
complete in order to meet the needs of the XFC package. Addition and
validation of an lifecycle managers for ECM, and framework 4.1 legacy
support. All of these things are strongly related to Avalon initatives
and the people here.
As such I would not support seperating out Merlin as I belive it would
be counter-productive to its evolution - furthermore, I believe Merlin
is 100% within Avalon scope and addresses a particular level of
abstraction that is not supported by any other Avalon iniative.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 06:00, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
think I should clarify my point of view: -0; not for me to decide. I
disagree with the idea though.
> As well ....
>
> * Excalibur bits go to Commons or elsewhere, apart from the bits used by one or other container,
> which go with that container.
(There's bits already moved to Jakarta Commons which shouldn't move to
Apache Commons unless they move from Jakarta Commons to there as well.
IMHO. Otherwise I agree.)
> * Merlin leaves Avalon CVS.
-0 (again, if the merlin developers all want to leave I'm not in the
way). It is in-scope for avalon, provides useful features no other
container provides, is in use and in development. I'm +1 on it going to
a proposal or scratchpad area though.
> * Logkit goes to top level?
my gut feeling says the logkit community isn't quite big enough to
warrant its own PMC; I think probably the best PMC to manage it is the
Commons PMC. Where it winds up site-wise (ie logkit.apache.org,
avalon.apache.org/logkit, jakarta.apache.org/avalon/logkit,
commons.apache.org/logkit).....I'm in favor of logkit.apache.org.
> Avalon becomes Avalon-Framework, which I've said over and over again is the only level at which
> compataibility between containers is guaranteed (and that we all agree on). Some containers have
> xml component lacing, some another type of xml lacing, yet others have _no_ meta data. All are
> fine. Focus people.
I think avalon should aim to provide not only avalon framework, but also
a container (at least one, more if sensible technically) that allows you
to use avalon framework.
> No people from the new phoenix group do not have automatic rights on commit to Avalon. If they
> were there (committing before) they remain IMHO.
I'd say they do get privileges; probably the best idea is to ask each
phoenix committer what they want if any phoenix breakout goes forward.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:paul_hammant@yahoo.com]
>
> > +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
>
> As well ....
>
> * Excalibur bits go to Commons or elsewhere, apart from the
> bits used by one or other container,
> which go with that container.
> * Merlin leaves Avalon CVS.
Go to scratchpad, yes, but leave?
> * Logkit goes to top level?
Maybe...
> Avalon becomes Avalon-Framework, which I've said over and
> over again is the only level at which compataibility between
> containers is guaranteed (and that we all agree on).
> Some
> containers have xml component lacing, some another type of
> xml lacing, yet others have _no_ meta data.
Still, there *is* a meta model for components. For example,
even if the container doesn't provide any support for it,
some components *do* have dependencies. I see no harm in
having classes in framework that can be used to hold that
minimal set of data.
The danger comes when we introduce elements that do not
correspond to an intrinsic property of components. For example,
remotable, etc... Or worse, couple the metamodel to some
kind of lifecycle processing code, making it more than
just a holder of information and thus binding it to a container
implementation.
Peter Donald's latest info proposal looked like it could
be just that, but it didn't seem to survive the travel
from private email exchanges to the general list.
(I also see no problem with them having an XML representation,
as in "if you're going to use an xml representation of this
in your container, we recommend you use this one...". For
example, even though Configuration objects are build from XML
in most cases, and the DefaultConfigurationBuilder builds from
XML, there's nothing in the Configuration contract that says
that it *must* be XML based.)
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> +1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
As well ....
* Excalibur bits go to Commons or elsewhere, apart from the bits used by one or other container,
which go with that container.
* Merlin leaves Avalon CVS.
* Logkit goes to top level?
Avalon becomes Avalon-Framework, which I've said over and over again is the only level at which
compataibility between containers is guaranteed (and that we all agree on). Some containers have
xml component lacing, some another type of xml lacing, yet others have _no_ meta data. All are
fine. Focus people.
No people from the new phoenix group do not have automatic rights on commit to Avalon. If they
were there (committing before) they remain IMHO.
- Paul
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [Proposal] Breaking up Avalon
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
+1 for Phoenix becoming a top level project.
-ph
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>