You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/08/14 04:05:15 UTC
Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
untangled.
I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own spec
ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having one project doing software
implementation that is called "Jini", just as I'd be against projects
like "Apache JCP", "Apache W3C", "Apache OASIS", "Apache ECMA" etc.
However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
process for JINI.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
the working code that has been proposed.
Comments?
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
>> untangled.
>>
>> I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own spec
>> ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having one project doing software
>> implementation that is called "Jini", just as I'd be against projects
>> like "Apache JCP", "Apache W3C", "Apache OASIS", "Apache ECMA" etc.
>
> As I understand it, Jini is not equivalent to JCP or any of the other
> orgs you name here. It's an org with a tighter focus.
>
> That said, it appears that it is the intent of the Jini community to
> have multiple implementations of the spec. [1]
Yes - it's not a perfect analogy.
>
>>
>> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
>> process for JINI.
>
> And I'd say that this purpose is very much in line with what we did with
> JDO. The project has both the spec and tck but not an implementation.
IIRC, Sun is the spec lead. Apache isn't.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
>> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
>> the working code that has been proposed.
>
> And if the "spec podling" focused on the spec and compliance test
> aspects (the org.jini stuff), and the "impl podling" focused on the
> implementation aspects (the com.sun.jini stuff), I think it would be a
> lot cleaner.
Exactly.
>
> It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the former,
> and the "to be named" podling the latter. Fortunately, the incubator
> should be warmed up for a naming discussion.
<chortle>
I'd suggest we let the proposers give the name a shot first...
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Craig.Russell wrote:
>
>
>> It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the
>> [spec project], and the "to be named" podling the [implementation
>> project]. Fortunately, the incubator should be warmed up for a
>> naming discussion.
>>
>
> Apache JINI and Apache JINN? Deliberate play on words, and related
> sounds.
>
Apache Genie
rub my tummy for good luck!
> --- Noel
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Craig.Russell wrote:
> It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the
> [spec project], and the "to be named" podling the [implementation
> project]. Fortunately, the incubator should be warmed up for a
> naming discussion.
Apache JINI and Apache JINN? Deliberate play on words, and related
sounds.
--- Noel
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 13, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> As the champion for JINI, I suppose it behooves me to try and get this
> untangled.
>
> I'm not a Jini expert, but my understanding is that it is it's own
> spec
> ecosystem. Therefore, I'm against having one project doing software
> implementation that is called "Jini", just as I'd be against projects
> like "Apache JCP", "Apache W3C", "Apache OASIS", "Apache ECMA" etc.
As I understand it, Jini is not equivalent to JCP or any of the other
orgs you name here. It's an org with a tighter focus.
That said, it appears that it is the intent of the Jini community to
have multiple implementations of the spec. [1]
>
> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
> process for JINI.
And I'd say that this purpose is very much in line with what we did
with JDO. The project has both the spec and tck but not an
implementation.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for
> JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and community
> around
> the working code that has been proposed.
And if the "spec podling" focused on the spec and compliance test
aspects (the org.jini stuff), and the "impl podling" focused on the
implementation aspects (the com.sun.jini stuff), I think it would be
a lot cleaner.
It would appear then that the "Apache Jini" podling would be the
former, and the "to be named" podling the latter. Fortunately, the
incubator should be warmed up for a naming discussion.
Craig
[1] http://www.jini.org/wiki/Category:Introduction_to_Jini
> geir
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
>>from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards process.
>
> Wouldn't it be the same people in the code podling working in two
> podlings?
If one of the podlings is for running a standards process, then no,
I don't believe it would be the same people; the standards podling
is likely to be close to the null set.
> So by separating this, we can be sure we can do well building the code
> community, and figure out the spec community along the way, if there was
> interest. But by your starting sentence, you don't seem to believe
> that's viable anyway.
Again, I view developing specs (APIs) as distinct from running a
standards process. My concerns are with the latter, not the former.
> And that's a warning sign for me, right off the line, because I have
> trouble seeing how the development process inside a company is going to
> be similar to the somewhat chaotic dev process of an Apache project.
I agree the process will be different; that wasn't my point.
My point was that I don't see the development process for APIs
needing to be fundamentally different from the one for implementations.
>>The questions about committer votes and status
>>for specs vs code seem the same as those for component A vs
>>component B in a multi-component project.
>
> We tend not to segregate the committers.
And I don't see a problem with that; it's a good thing.
> You didn't just risk oversimplification, you committed an
> oversimplification felony :)
>
> I'd argue that they are completely different in that the creation of a
> spec requires different skills than implementing that spec.
I don't see how requiring different skills necessarily implies
requiring different development processes.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
>
> For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
> from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards process.
Wouldn't it be the same people in the code podling working in two
podlings? If it works out that they have different governance, then
we're golden. If they work out to be the same governance, then no harm
done - just bring them together.
>
> The community dynamics around "standards" and "an implementation"
> may well be very different, but I'm not suggesting that we try to
> maintain "standards" going forward, just that we try to maintain
> a separation between "interface" and "implementation".
Ok - that's fine. Then we just don't start the 'standards' podling?
That still won't change my opinion about the problem with calling it
"Apache Jini"
>
>> How would it work? Would you give every committer a vote on the specs
>> as they were created? What is the hurdle needed to get committer
>> status? Participation in both? We understand how to do code
>> communities here at the ASF, and no experience in how to do spec
>> creation/governance.
>
> Isn't a key purpose of incubation to work out the process?
Well, no - it's to build healthy apache communities and oversee IP
inflows. When the Incubator is figuring out new process - which is what
happened with Geronimo, the first project that was all community and no
code - things can be painful for that community.
So by separating this, we can be sure we can do well building the code
community, and figure out the spec community along the way, if there was
interest. But by your starting sentence, you don't seem to believe
that's viable anyway.
> Is it OK if we don't have all of the answers up front?
Absolutely.
> Within the Sun team that created most of the specs and code
> that are being proposed as the starting point for the project,
> to my mind the development process for the two has pretty much
> been the same.
And that's a warning sign for me, right off the line, because I have
trouble seeing how the development process inside a company is going to
be similar to the somewhat chaotic dev process of an Apache project.
> The questions about committer votes and status
> for specs vs code seem the same as those for component A vs
> component B in a multi-component project.
We tend not to segregate the committers.
> At the risk over
> oversimplification, if I view a spec as "Java interface plus
> javadoc", and an implementation as "Java class plus javadoc",
> they are both code plus doc, amenable to the same overall process.
You didn't just risk oversimplification, you committed an
oversimplification felony :)
I'd argue that they are completely different in that the creation of a
spec requires different skills than implementing that spec.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>
> Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
For the reason I stated: I don't believe we have sufficient commitments
from people willing and able to run a broad-based standards process.
The community dynamics around "standards" and "an implementation"
may well be very different, but I'm not suggesting that we try to
maintain "standards" going forward, just that we try to maintain
a separation between "interface" and "implementation".
> How would it work? Would you give every committer a vote on the specs
> as they were created? What is the hurdle needed to get committer
> status? Participation in both? We understand how to do code
> communities here at the ASF, and no experience in how to do spec
> creation/governance.
Isn't a key purpose of incubation to work out the process?
Is it OK if we don't have all of the answers up front?
Within the Sun team that created most of the specs and code
that are being proposed as the starting point for the project,
to my mind the development process for the two has pretty much
been the same. The questions about committer votes and status
for specs vs code seem the same as those for component A vs
component B in a multi-component project. At the risk over
oversimplification, if I view a spec as "Java interface plus
javadoc", and an implementation as "Java class plus javadoc",
they are both code plus doc, amenable to the same overall process.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
>> process for JINI.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
>> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
>> the working code that has been proposed.
>
> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
Why? I think we are talking about two very different community dynamics.
> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
> an equivalent of the existing Jini community standards process going
> forward.
How would it work? Would you give every committer a vote on the specs
as they were created? What is the hurdle needed to get committer
status? Participation in both? We understand how to do code
communities here at the ASF, and no experience in how to do spec
creation/governance.
My recommendation is to not mix the two up.
> I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
> maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
How do you foresee the spec maintenance/creation/development process to
work?
> (And as such, the specs would no longer be "standards".)
They aren't now, anyway :)
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I could go add that to the website if that would help. We're not a
> legalistic community where exploiting loopholes or lack of written law
> is encouraged...
Sorry, it was meant as a simple question. It's extremely hard for
a newcomer like me to distinguish between personal opinions, traditions,
norms, and requirements.
You said "we have a tradition, for good reason". Could you elaborate
on the reason?
> Let me try to illustrate it this way - would you be interested in
> bringing what you have to the ASF if there already was a project called
> "Apache Jini"?
Absolutely! If there was already a project called Apache Jini,
I think we'd be proposing to become part of it.
Of course, as the guy who called it X, you might also decide that
I don't worry too much about names. ;-)
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
>
> Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership of"
> rather than merely "category of"?
I could go add that to the website if that would help. We're not a
legalistic community where exploiting loopholes or lack of written law
is encouraged...
Let me try to illustrate it this way - would you be interested in
bringing what you have to the ASF if there already was a project called
"Apache Jini"?
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
Is it written somewhere that ASF project names must mean "ownership of"
rather than merely "category of"?
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
>> "Apache Jini", it shouldn't be implementation focused.
>
> Absolutely +1 from me! If we do create Apache Jini then it must be that
> we did it "at the cost of" Sun Jini going away.
I'm an Apache bigot, so I think of it "at the benefit of".... :D
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 12:41 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
> "Apache Jini", it shouldn't be implementation focused.
Absolutely +1 from me! If we do create Apache Jini then it must be that
we did it "at the cost of" Sun Jini going away.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Garrett Rooney wrote:
>>It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
>>are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
>
> Just because we did things in the past does not mean it was a good idea.
That's fine, but it doesn't help me understand the statement
about there being a tradition of not using category names.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> > "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> > "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
>
> It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
> are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
Just because we did things in the past does not mean it was a good idea.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Filip at Apache wrote:
>> jini is a trademark
>> directory isn't
>
> The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web", and I'd like to understand how those two
> are different from "Apache Directory", "Apache Web Services", etc.
I have no clue why we let Directory happen ;) as it did come out of the
Incubator, but as for WS, that is a far older umbrella project.
I'm beginning to believe that there was a moment in time in the History
of Open Source where such umbrellas had positive community properties
that provided a nurturing environment for new people and projects to
embed. For example, Jakarta had a strong, diverse, cross-sub-project
community for a long time that had a single identity unto itself, and it
was incredibly prolific.
It may be now that we've all collectively matured in how we do open
source, so that model may no longer be as needed (if it was needed) or
productive as it once was. It certainly has major downsides, such as
misplaced identity and affiliation w/ the umbrella vs the ASF.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Filip at Apache wrote:
> jini is a trademark
> directory isn't
The question wasn't about Jini vs others. Geir said he wouldn't support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web", and I'd like to understand how those two
are different from "Apache Directory", "Apache Web Services", etc.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
>> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
>> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
>>
>
> It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
> are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
>
jini is a trademark
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=v6g57o.2.9
directory isn't
and although, there is an individual that has trademarked "XML", I doubt
that it is actually legally a thread to the acronym XML
Filip
> - Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web".
It would help me if you could explain how these existing TLP names
are different/OK: DB, Directory, Logging, Web Services, XML.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 21:42 +0300, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> However, I'm still confused at the need to bring in a separate spec
> project. The Jini proposal states the scope of the project to be the
> "implementation" of the specification, and that scope is still valid
> regardless of what happens with the Jini standard. And I very much
> agree with the idea of choosing a different name for the
> implementation project.
We seem to be agreeing that the name "Jini" commonly refers to a
technology not an implementation.
So if the project is about just an impl of Jini then +1 for going ahead
with just Apache XYZ, where XYZ != Jini.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
> "technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
> "Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
> "Apache Jini", it shouldn't be implementation focused.
I see your point, agreed.
However, I'm still confused at the need to bring in a separate spec
project. The Jini proposal states the scope of the project to be the
"implementation" of the specification, and that scope is still valid
regardless of what happens with the Jini standard. And I very much
agree with the idea of choosing a different name for the
implementation project.
If it happens that no other home is found for the standard and the
Jini community wants to continue the work of the JDP within the ASF,
then a separate spec project sounds like a good approach. But at least
to me it seems that the need for a separate spec project comes more
from within the ASF than from the Jini community. In short I think we
are prematurely rushing things.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
>> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
>> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
>> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
>> an equivalent of the existing Jini community standards process going
>> forward. I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
>> maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
>
> +1
>
> If it becomes more evident that a cleaner spec/impl divide is needed,
> then that can be handled during incubation when everyone has a better
> understanding of the issues. For now I think it makes more sense to
> bring the existing community in as it exists instead of artificially
> splitting it based on external requirements.
>
We have a tradition, for good reason, for not giving our projects
"technology domain" ownership for implementations. I'd never support
"Apache EMail" or "Apache Web". That's why if we are going to have
"Apache Jini", it shouldn't be implementation focused.
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/14/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
> an equivalent of the existing Jini community standards process going
> forward. I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
> maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
+1
If it becomes more evident that a cleaner spec/impl divide is needed,
then that can be handled during incubation when everyone has a better
understanding of the issues. For now I think it makes more sense to
bring the existing community in as it exists instead of artificially
splitting it based on external requirements.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
>> I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name
>
> I think Mark has put it rather well.
>
> The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around.
Brilliant :-)
--
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Monday 21 August 2006 03:24, Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name
I think Mark has put it rather well.
The Jini community want a water cooler to gather around. We would be happy if
that is the Apache Jini project, and we are happy that such project is both
the steward of the specs as well as providing implementations of some or all
of those specs.
To be clear, the current Jini Starter Kit contains implementations for some of
the specifications, and they are all named without the "Jini monopolization",
e.g. The Jini Discovery & Lookup specification is implemented by Reggie, the
Jini Distributed Transaction specification is implemented by Mahalo, and so
on.
Having these as subprojects in "Apache Jini" makes a great deal more sense to
me, than trying to break them out in one or many separate projects. I am sure
the community will be listing alternate implementations as well, and maybe
invite competition as well.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>.
Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name, but if
> it has to become something like "Genie" would it still be possible to do
> the following:
>
> - Create various specification deliverables that are of the form "Jini
> bla bla bla Specification/API".
>
> - Specifications/API in the net.jini namespace.
>
> And remember that there is no body outside the ASF project that defines
> those specifications, that is the job of the ASF project.
Anyone?
--
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/20/06, Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org> wrote:
> So I guess that means I can't support Geir's proposal as it is not in
> line what I and the larger part of the Jini Community want.
So you believe that we should go back to the original proposal with
the added implication that there is only one "Jini" around? I don't
have a problem with that, as long as the nature of the incubated
project is clear and in line with the wishes of the Jini community.
> I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name, but if
> it has to become something like "Genie" would it still be possible to do
> the following:
>
> - Create various specification deliverables that are of the form "Jini
> bla bla bla Specification/API".
>
> - Specifications/API in the net.jini namespace.
>
> And remember that there is no body outside the ASF project that defines
> those specifications, that is the job of the ASF project.
That would mean changing the scope of the Jini proposal. Again, I'm OK
with that as long as it's clear that the intention is to specify the
interface contracts of this implementation rather than the
interoperability standards of an open platform.
Note that the issue is not so much technical as a social or
perceptional one. As Geir argued, if Jini is meant to be a "technology
domain", i.e. an interoperable space with open standards and
independent implementations, then an implementation project should not
be named "Apache Jini". Is it the consensus of the Jini community that
Jini is *not* a technology domain as defined above?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>.
Bob Scheifler wrote:
> There are definitely people in the community that want to see the
> existing Jini community process maintained for approving standards.
> I used to be one of them. But, when we've looked for volunteers
> committed to running that process, there are very few takers.
I was one of those few volunteers, and maybe even more important most
people expressed they didn't see the need for "blessing" specifications
as Standards given the circumstances. They seem to be happy with the way
how Sun interacted with the Community with regard to their
specifications in the past years. I believe it is their expectation, and
I hope they are right, an ASF project will function in a similar way
with the added benefits of the Open Source dynamics found here at the ASF.
A few weeks ago I was not in favor of managing the specifications as
part of the same ASF project but given what the Jini Community seems to
want I changed opinion and decided it is better to spend my energy in
mentoring new developers with the core principals part of the current
Jini specifications and implementations instead of maintaining a process
that not that many seem to have interest in at this stage for the Jini
technology.
So I guess that means I can't support Geir's proposal as it is not in
line what I and the larger part of the Jini Community want.
>> This is a pretty important step, probably equally important as your
>> decision to use the Apache License for Jini. I don't want to impose
>> any arbitrary barriers to acceptance into the Apache incubator, but
>> I'd like to see a wider discussion of abandoning the "standard".
>
> To my mind the wider discussions have already taken place within
> the Jini community. At some point, I stop wishing for what could be
> in theory, and start executing on what I think can be in practice.
My feeling too.
While I can understand the discussion came to this point I also feel
that we are deviating from whether "Jini" is an appropriate name for the
project. A few raised objections for reasons that IMHO are not always
*that* clear based on the answers given to Bob's questions.
Assuming it is legally allowed to use the name Jini I can't see why
"Apache Jini", "Codehaus Jini", "Jini Community", etc. would be
problematic especially as the "Apache Jini" project seems to have
multiple deliverables such as *various* Jini Specifications,
implementations of these specifications and additional tools targeted at
the development of Jini services.
The usage of the name Jini implies to me all these projects do something
Jini Technology related, so yes it is likely intended to define an
"umbrella" or category, but based on the above isn't that what is
proposed?
I think I've spent already a few hours trying to find the right
sentences to explain why the name Jini (if legally allowed) would be in
the interest of us all, but after writing large pieces of text that have
been deleted straight away I just can't seem to do that in a positive
way that won't raise more questions. So as a last resort I'm going to
try to do it the other way around, so already my excuses to the other
committers if I make things worse.
To be very blunt what is proposed here is that the ASF project is
"monopolizing" Jini ... in the interest of the larger Jini community.
This might seem a contradiction but this is how people in the Jini
Community seem to want how we deal with our current process, most
specifications and implementation. They just don't want to spend much
energy in a Jini Decision Process but the majority want to separate
specifications from implementations that was one of the fundamental
principals by the Sun team that is responsible for almost all of the
Jini Specifications.
They want these specifications to be in the net.jini namespace where
they are right now, not only because of the migration hell they would
otherwise be confronted with, all the documentation/books that become
useless, etc., but also because that namespace would imply stability,
opposed to a namespace org.apache.jini that is likely more subject to
change.
That means that the committers of the ASF project will debate what
should end up as specification (net.jini namespace) that allows for
multiple implementations and what ends up in the org.apache.jini.xxx
namespace. The major difference with the past situation is that there is
no way to 'correct' what ends up in the net.jini namespace by the larger
community, but, as I said before, that is what they want. And I have
confidence (based on past experience) that the group of committers is
willing to listen to any argument of those that have no formal say in
the ASF project.
And maybe when Jini gets wider adoption we could submit part of the
net.jini namespace to another standards body if that would be in the
interest of the wider community.
I would be saddened if we can't maintain "Jini" as project name, but if
it has to become something like "Genie" would it still be possible to do
the following:
- Create various specification deliverables that are of the form "Jini
bla bla bla Specification/API".
- Specifications/API in the net.jini namespace.
And remember that there is no body outside the ASF project that defines
those specifications, that is the job of the ASF project.
--
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Jim Hurley wrote:
> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent", (what will
> be) "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
> developer go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
>
> I view it as being/becoming *the* Jini Community's touchstone (or main
> commons).
+1
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Mark Brouwer <ma...@cheiron.org>.
Jim Hurley wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
>>> implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
>>
>> I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
>> standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project
>> being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
>> implementation?
>
> Hi Jukka-
>
> I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
> definition of "is" is".... but I'd answer that I believe the Jini Community
> views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
>
> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
> (what will be)
> "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a developer
> go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
>
> I view it as being/becoming *the* Jini Community's touchstone (or main
> commons).
Correct, as an example I'm the lead for the Jini Service Container
called Seven that is based on many of the proposed specifications and
implementations and builds on top. And while I don't re-implement the
specifications I've created many derivate works of the proposed code.
Some of that flowed back into the Sun codebase or likely will in the
future, some won't such as re-implementations of many of the Jini
services, but "specifications wise" these are still compatible.
And as Dan explained for many of the (service) specifications there are
already multiple implementations but with oh some many code from what is
proposed here. But then again many of these reimplementation is not what
I would define as "Jini" if I was pressed to describe it as a noun ;-)
And as Bob explained "depending on how the ASF project evolves Jini may
become easier and more synonymous with the specs and/or code produced by
the project", with the exception that where he uses "the specs produced
by the project" I would be inclined to say "*some* of the specs produced
by the project". Or to be more explicit I would like to see a Jini
Platform to be established, similar to the J2EE Platform, so that where
people could say "I wrote a J2EE application" we can say "I wrote a Jini
service" and that would have a meaning by the majority of the Jini
Community.
--
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Filip at Apache <fh...@apache.org>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
>> definition of "is" is".... but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
>> Community
>> views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
>>
>> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
>> (what will be)
>> "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
>> developer
>> go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
>>
>
> If the resulting code is in org.jini.* then I have no problem with this.
>
> However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
> com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
> there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
> putting the two parts together.
>
doesn't make sense, let me give you two examples, the latter being
extremely obvious
1. in Tomcat we have javax.servlet.*, org.apache.catalina.*,
org.apache.coyote.*, org.apache.jasper.*, javax.mail.*, javax.annotation.*
2. Harmony, are we saying that harmony couldn't implement
java.lang.String and org.apache.harmony.strings.StringImpl?
Clearly harmony is a project for both spec and implementation, and yes,
there are more than one implementation available, but that doesn't mean
harmony doesn't create their own java.* library.
Filip
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> But I'd suggest that the com.sun.jini package should change to
> org.apache.newNameForJiniImplementation when it comes over.
I can certainly understand the desire from ASF's perspective
for this to occur. Such a renaming will have an impact on
pretty much all of our existing users, though, so we're going
to raise this over on the broader Jini community mailing lists
to see what the general reaction to it is.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
>>
>> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
>> (what will be)
>> "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
>> developer
>> go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
>
> If the resulting code is in org.jini.* then I have no problem with
> this.
>
> However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
> com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
> there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
> putting the two parts together.
I don't have a problem with keeping the org.jini name for the APIs,
regardless of whether the governance of the spec project stays
dormant or comes over to Apache.
But I'd suggest that the com.sun.jini package should change to
org.apache.newNameForJiniImplementation when it comes over.
Craig
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
> com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
> there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
> putting the two parts together.
Can you expand on why you're against?
(Aside: it's net.jini.*)
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 17:36 -0400, Jim Hurley wrote:
> I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
> definition of "is" is".... but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
> Community
> views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
>
> But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
> (what will be)
> "the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
> developer
> go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
If the resulting code is in org.jini.* then I have no problem with this.
However, the current structure appears to be org.jini.* for APIs and
com.sun.something.* for implementation. Clearly that structure says
there can be multiple implementations - and in that case I'm against
putting the two parts together.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
>> implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
>
> I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
> standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project
> being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
> implementation?
Hi Jukka-
I'm not going to try and pull a Bill Clinton with "it depends what the
definition of "is" is".... but I'd answer that I believe the Jini
Community
views the project as *the* Jini implementation.
But *the* as in: "the main", "the original", "the most prominent",
(what will be)
"the Community's implementation", and "the one you'd recommend a
developer
go grab to get going with Jini". But not *the* as in "the only".
I view it as being/becoming *the* Jini Community's touchstone (or main
commons).
Don't know if that helps.
-Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
>>implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
>
> I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
> standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project
> being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
> implementation?
Again not to nitpick, but both choices you present assume that
there is an agreed upon definition of what "Jini" is, and that it
aligns with the contents of the proposed project, and that there is
consensus in the community. I don't think any of those hold. :)
But despite all of that, I believe you'll find relatively few people
in the Jini community who are unhappy with "Apache Jini" as the
proposed ASF project name.
You will find many different views of what "Jini" is. I think
you'll find rough agreement that some large subset of the specs
for what's being proposed as the starting point for the project
is at the heart of what Jini is, but you'll find disagreement
both at the edges and in the middle as to what the heart is, and
disagreement as to whether anything else done in the community
is or isn't part of "Jini". As for "the" vs "a", despite Sun's best
effort in the past to put the "a" label on Sun's implementations of
the various specs, the Starter Kit distribution (as a whole) from Sun
is I think viewed by many as "the", even though when pressed they
will acknowledge that there are other implementations of some of
the pieces, and that other implementations of all of the pieces
are possible. (I don't find any of this surprising.)
Going forward, without a standards process, agreement on what
"Jini" is may well be even harder to come by; or depending on how
the ASF project evolves, it may become easier and more synonymous
with the specs and/or code produced by the project. Right now
I don't see anyone in the community really disagreeing about the
initial contributions for the project, but I don't think we have
consensus on where the project should evolve to; I think that's
something that gets worked on during incubation.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
> But I'm not sure it matters at this point whether we agree on how
> to interpret success or failure in the past.
Agreed. I'm sorry for bringing the issue out in that light.
> I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
> implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations.
I think the interpretation of this goal underlies both the naming and
standard issues. In essence, does the Jini community see the project
being proposed as *the* Jini implementation or as *a* Jini
implementation?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
>>*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
>>a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
>>Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
>>were in fact developed within the same project that did the
>>initial (and in many cases, still the only) implementation.
>
> I believe that this is actually a major structural cause for not
> having other implementations of the standard.
I can't tell if your "this" refers to the first two sentences
or the last sentence or their conjunction. But I'm not sure it
matters at this point whether we agree on how to interpret success
or failure in the past.
> Thus, and as pointed out
> by other people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is
> to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
> managed by a separate body.
I'm not convinced the goal in the past was to have multiple
implementations, vs allowing multiple implementations. Going forward,
for the APIs that are coupled with the implementations that are
part of the ASF project, I see the goal as just allowing, not having.
And in case it hasn't been clear, to my mind the ASF project is only
dealing with those APIs for which it is also producing an implementation.
It is not trying to be the governing body for all Jini-related APIs.
As a concrete example, we have an existing pair of Jini community
standards (the Surrogate Architecture and the IP Interconnect for it)
and an implementation (called Madison) that aren't being proposed for
inclusion in the ASF project; they now exist in a project on java.net.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Dan Creswell <da...@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
>> It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
>> *developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
>> a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
>> Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
>> were in fact developed within the same project that did the
>> initial (and in many cases, still the only) implementation.
>
> I believe that this is actually a major structural cause for not
> having other implementations of the standard. Thus, and as pointed out
> by other people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is
> to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
> managed by a separate body.
>
I don't think it's correct to assume that JDP/existing processes are a
structural cause for not having other implementations.
We have multiple implementations of JavaSpaces - mine, which is
opensource (blitz javaspaces) and a commercial (gigaspaces).
There is an opensource Lookup Service in development, called Perrin,
that I am aware of. Psinaptic have a commercial Lookup Service designed
for use with embedded devices.
There is also another Transaction Manager available to replace Mahalo,
called Cohesions from Paremus/Choreology.
Speaking as the author of Blitz, the reasons I haven't bothered
re-implementing the other specs are:
(1) I have no particular personal technical interest in them right now
(2) They're more often that not good enough (though I've been tempted
to re-implement Mahalo myself)
(3) I think there's more useful work to be done in developing
additional frameworks, specs and services to sit on top of what we
already have.
(4) Those that are using the available implementations are by and large
happy with them judging by a lack of complaints and I am therefore
putting my energy into wider adoption as well as the stuff I identified
in (3).
At no point have I, and it seems others, been put off by the JDP - in
fact, most of us have, in one way or another, been involved in the
development of existing specs as part of the current Jini community.
Best wishes,
Dan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
> It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
> *developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
> a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
> Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
> were in fact developed within the same project that did the
> initial (and in many cases, still the only) implementation.
I believe that this is actually a major structural cause for not
having other implementations of the standard. Thus, and as pointed out
by other people as well, if the goal of the Jini community really is
to have independent implementations, the Jini standards should be
managed by a separate body.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
> the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down.
I hope I'm not nitpicking, but there isn't a singular Jini standard;
there are multiple specifications that have been approved as standards
under the JDP. (Jini doesn't have an umbrella "platform" specification.)
> It's correct
> to insist in that the standard shouldn't be developed within the
> implementation project if the goal is to allow independent
> implementations.
I don't know that it will matter in the end, but I disagree.
It's important to note that the JDP is not a process for
*developing* standards, but for *approving* them. The JDP is
a backend decision process, not a frontend development process.
Most of the specifications that have been approved under the JDP
were in fact developed within the same project that did the
initial (and in many cases, still the only) implementation.
> Thus, there are two options:
>
> 1) It is decided (by what community?) that there is no need for
> independent implementations, in which case bringing in the project
> with both the implementation and the specifications under the name of
> "Apache Jini" would make sense.
>
> 2) Independent implementations remains a goal for the Jini standard,
> and a suitably independent body (be it an Apache project, a real
> standardization organization, or whatever) is chartered for the
> maintenance and development of the standard. In this case we bring in
> the JTSK (+ related tools) implementation as an "Apache Something"
> project that focuses on the implementation of the externally defined
> standard.
I can't tell if your #1 implies that the notion of Jini standards
disappears. I don't see a problem with an outcome in which the
notion of Jini "standards" disappears, but the ASF project continues
to maintain and develop APIs that others could also produce
implementations of, as well as the ASF project producing implementations
of those APIs. Which I think is a different outcome than either of
your two options?
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM>.
I think we've had good discussion and have furthered the thinking
in some areas that were contentious in the Proposal. We're probably
aligned in some places and still have differences of opinion in others.
I'll try and summarize in an email over the weekend to help (at least
me!) sync where we are. Hope that will help.
thanks -Jim
On Aug 18, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we
>> have a
>> community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now.
>> Because it
>> still is a standard we can work on that in parallel if all parties
>> are
>> willing.
>
> +1
>
>> I believe therefore that we have now returned to the original
>> question... what should the name of the new podling be called? :)
>
> I think "Apache Jinn" and "Apache Genie" have already been proposed.
> Other alternatives could be "Apache Jafar" or "Apache Jasmine" based
> on characters from the Disney film featuring the famous genie. (Though
> I'm quite sure that "Jafar" and "Jasmine" are trademarked by Disney.
> Is that a problem for us?) "Apache Aladdin" would also be nice, but
> "Aladdin" is already heavily used.
>
> Would the Jini community be happy with bringing the project in under a
> different name? At some point it was mentioned that keeping the "Jini"
> name would be the preferred choice. I'd like to advocate using a
> different name also from the point of view that there is currently no
> exact definition of "Jini", and starting "Apache Jini" would just add
> to that confusion.
>
> Are there any other open issues regarding the proposal?
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> --
> Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
> Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we have a
> community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now. Because it
> still is a standard we can work on that in parallel if all parties are
> willing.
+1
> I believe therefore that we have now returned to the original
> question... what should the name of the new podling be called? :)
I think "Apache Jinn" and "Apache Genie" have already been proposed.
Other alternatives could be "Apache Jafar" or "Apache Jasmine" based
on characters from the Disney film featuring the famous genie. (Though
I'm quite sure that "Jafar" and "Jasmine" are trademarked by Disney.
Is that a problem for us?) "Apache Aladdin" would also be nice, but
"Aladdin" is already heavily used.
Would the Jini community be happy with bringing the project in under a
different name? At some point it was mentioned that keeping the "Jini"
name would be the preferred choice. I'd like to advocate using a
different name also from the point of view that there is currently no
exact definition of "Jini", and starting "Apache Jini" would just add
to that confusion.
Are there any other open issues regarding the proposal?
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
> the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down. It's correct
> to insist in that the standard shouldn't be developed within the
> implementation project if the goal is to allow independent
> implementations. Thus, there are two options:
>
> 1) It is decided (by what community?) that there is no need for
> independent implementations, in which case bringing in the project
> with both the implementation and the specifications under the name of
> "Apache Jini" would make sense.
>
> 2) Independent implementations remains a goal for the Jini standard,
> and a suitably independent body (be it an Apache project, a real
> standardization organization, or whatever) is chartered for the
> maintenance and development of the standard. In this case we bring in
> the JTSK (+ related tools) implementation as an "Apache Something"
> project that focuses on the implementation of the externally defined
> standard.
>
> I'm personally in favor of option 2, but at this point I think it's
> premature to decide what to do with the Jini standard.
Thanks for summarizing well what I have been advocating.
I think that we should consider the Jini standard separately - we have a
community and a codebase, and should proceed with that now. Because it
still is a standard we can work on that in parallel if all parties are
willing.
I believe therefore that we have now returned to the original
question... what should the name of the new podling be called? :)
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/15/06, Bob Scheifler <Bo...@sun.com> wrote:
> I'll try again. It seems we're discussing three different things:
> 1. development of code
> 2. development of specs
> 3. running a standards process
>
> My concern is about #3, and not trying to do it in an ASF project.
> My reason is simple: there aren't people willing to do it.
> I'm guessing that others in this discussion have been focused on #2,
> and/or are tying #2 and #3 tightly together. Perhaps differences in
> what we each mean by "specification" is causing mutual confusion?
I think the difference in how the Jini specs are seen is the key issue
here. Quite a few of the Java projects in Apache are implementations
of external specs, so bringing in a project that essentially defines
its own specifications raises some questions especially since the
specs were managed by a process and are stated to allow independent
implementations.
Stretching quite far to make a point; we don't expect for example the
Lucene project to branch a separate spec project to allow independent
implementations of the Lucene API.
I think the question boils down to the issue of what will happen to
the Jini standard now that the JDP has been closed down. It's correct
to insist in that the standard shouldn't be developed within the
implementation project if the goal is to allow independent
implementations. Thus, there are two options:
1) It is decided (by what community?) that there is no need for
independent implementations, in which case bringing in the project
with both the implementation and the specifications under the name of
"Apache Jini" would make sense.
2) Independent implementations remains a goal for the Jini standard,
and a suitably independent body (be it an Apache project, a real
standardization organization, or whatever) is chartered for the
maintenance and development of the standard. In this case we bring in
the JTSK (+ related tools) implementation as an "Apache Something"
project that focuses on the implementation of the externally defined
standard.
I'm personally in favor of option 2, but at this point I think it's
premature to decide what to do with the Jini standard.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
> it?
I'll try again. It seems we're discussing three different things:
1. development of code
2. development of specs
3. running a standards process
My concern is about #3, and not trying to do it in an ASF project.
My reason is simple: there aren't people willing to do it.
I'm guessing that others in this discussion have been focused on #2,
and/or are tying #2 and #3 tightly together. Perhaps differences in
what we each mean by "specification" is causing mutual confusion?
Would it help if I reworded #2 to be development of APIs?
> For example, what if we created jini-spec@i.a.o and jinn-dev@i.a.o? Forget
> the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
> related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
Are you making a suggestion about #2, #3, or both? Is my concern about
#3 clear?
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 12:50 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
:
> For example, what if we created jini-spec@i.a.o and jinn-
> dev@i.a.o? Forget
> the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a
> list
> related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
>
> Is that a starter? And if we have them both under a single podling to
> start, and we see how it goes, does that work for you?
Separate mailing lists for source code development and API/spec
discussions seems reasonable. Some developers in the Community
might be interested in the details on how the impl work is going, and
others
might be only interested in API -related proposed changes. I think
that would
work fine for us.
thanks -Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Either way, separate lists and source control areas.
Many of our specs are done "JDK-style": as javadoc embedded
directly in our implementation. We use javadoc tags to identify
implementation-specific information, such that we can generate
both "spec" and "doc" from a single source tree. We shifted
to this style very deliberately (we started out doing specs as
separate docs, and still have older specs in that form).
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> > if we start with the mailing lists separate and the source control
> > split, which seems natural from what everyone is saying, I expect
> > that the governmance issue will sort itself out in due course.
> Like a subproject?
Uh, no. Our governance model does not recognize the concept of a
sub-project as a separate unit of governance. And I don't know why you
would suggest that I was thinking of a sub-project when the paragraph
immediately preceding started with:
> > I do believe that it is likely that you will eventually want TWO
PROJECTS.
> > Why? BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE used at the ASF. All members
of
> > the Project Management Committee get equal votes, and veto ability on
> > technical matters.
Emphasis added.
So it seems to me that we're largely in agreement. The open question
appears to be whether to start with one podling and possibly split, or start
with two and possibly merge. Either way, separate lists and source control
areas.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
> it?
>
> For example, what if we created jini-spec@i.a.o and jinn-dev@i.a.o? Forget
> the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
> related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
>
> Is that a starter? And if we have them both under a single podling to
> start, and we see how it goes, does that work for you?
That doesn't work for me.
>
> I do believe that it is likely that you will eventually want two projects.
> Why? Because of the governance structure used at the ASF. All members of
> the Project Management Committee get equal votes, and veto ability on
> technical matters. Consensus based development and maintanence of specs in
> an open forum is perfectly viable. But development of specifications
> differs from development of code. The former requires a long term view, a
> mindset towards stability, and probably MORE ability to create a stable
> consensus than the latter.
>
> But if we start with the mailing lists separate and the source control
> split, which seems natural from what everyone is saying, I expect that the
> governmance issue will sort itself out in due course.
Like a subproject?
>
> Thoughts?
I'm not a fan.
geir
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Bob,
What is your concern? Can you please try to be simple and specific about
it?
For example, what if we created jini-spec@i.a.o and jinn-dev@i.a.o? Forget
the question of "how many podlings" --- I am simply talking about a list
related to specification work, and a list related to implementation.
Is that a starter? And if we have them both under a single podling to
start, and we see how it goes, does that work for you?
I do believe that it is likely that you will eventually want two projects.
Why? Because of the governance structure used at the ASF. All members of
the Project Management Committee get equal votes, and veto ability on
technical matters. Consensus based development and maintanence of specs in
an open forum is perfectly viable. But development of specifications
differs from development of code. The former requires a long term view, a
mindset towards stability, and probably MORE ability to create a stable
consensus than the latter.
But if we start with the mailing lists separate and the source control
split, which seems natural from what everyone is saying, I expect that the
governmance issue will sort itself out in due course.
Thoughts?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> This is an interesting turn. The Jini web site doesn't currently say
> anything like this. It talks about "the specification" and "the
> implementation" as separable pieces.
They are "separable", and I'm not suggesting that change. At the same
time, they have not been that "separated", and I'm not suggesting that
change either. :) Almost all of the specs and code that are proposed
as a starting point for the ASF project have been developed by a single
team at Sun (with varying degrees of community input). With successful
incubation at ASF, that should turn into a more diverse team, but I
don't see a necessity to separate. The notion of public interface with
multiple private implementations is a core part of Jini architecture, and
a core design tenet of the Sun team, to be instilled as necessary when
mentoring new committers. I don't see that separability disappearing easily.
What I'm suggesting goes away is not "spec vs impl", but the broad-based
formal approval process for deciding that a spec is a "standard".
> I wonder if others in the Jini community have this same objective?
There are definitely people in the community that want to see the
existing Jini community process maintained for approving standards.
I used to be one of them. But, when we've looked for volunteers
committed to running that process, there are very few takers.
> Would it make sense to update the jini.org web site once consensus is
> achieved?
To my mind, consensus as such will be demonstrated when we have an
ASF project that successfully exits incubation.
> This is a pretty important step, probably equally important as your
> decision to use the Apache License for Jini. I don't want to impose
> any arbitrary barriers to acceptance into the Apache incubator, but
> I'd like to see a wider discussion of abandoning the "standard".
To my mind the wider discussions have already taken place within
the Jini community. At some point, I stop wishing for what could be
in theory, and start executing on what I think can be in practice.
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Bob,
On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Bob Scheifler wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
>> process for JINI.
>>
>> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one
>> for JINI
>> governance, and one for building the implementation and community
>> around
>> the working code that has been proposed.
>
> I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
> I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec
> process,
> but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
> an equivalent of the existing Jini community standards process going
> forward. I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
> maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
> (And as such, the specs would no longer be "standards".)
This is an interesting turn. The Jini web site doesn't currently say
anything like this. It talks about "the specification" and "the
implementation" as separable pieces.
If the desire is to abandon the notion of a standard specification
and work on Jini as an implementation (the "standard" being whatever
the implementation ends up doing) then I agree that one podling
should be sufficient.
I wonder if others in the Jini community have this same objective?
Would it make sense to update the jini.org web site once consensus is
achieved?
This is a pretty important step, probably equally important as your
decision to use the Apache License for Jini. I don't want to impose
any arbitrary barriers to acceptance into the Apache incubator, but
I'd like to see a wider discussion of abandoning the "standard".
Craig
[1] http://www.jini.org/wiki/Category:Introduction_to_Jini
>
> - Bob
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> However, we do have a chance here to host the governance and spec
> process for JINI.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and community around
> the working code that has been proposed.
I'm extremely reluctant to start out with two podlings.
I'm not sure what "governance" you have in mind beyond the spec process,
but I don't believe we have sufficient commitments from people to keep
an equivalent of the existing Jini community standards process going
forward. I think our best shot at success is a single podling, which
maintains both specs and code under a single development process.
(And as such, the specs would no longer be "standards".)
- Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Jini : Separate Governance and Implementation Projects
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we create two podlings, one for JINI
> governance, and one for building the implementation and
> community around the working code that has been proposed.
> Comments?
None of an objecting nature. Would this satisfy the desires of the JINI
community?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org