You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org> on 2002/10/18 10:35:45 UTC
question: would we like avalon split?
Hi All,
I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be getting
sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
(like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
kind of 'uber-project'.
Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
size and scope of the avalon project?
I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
figure out how broad the support for this is =)
There'd perhaps be
avalon.apache.org
phoenix.apache.org
logkit.apache.org
altrmi.apache.org
...
incubator.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
graveyard.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
commons.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
along with probably different cvs repos, voting/access rights, web
pages, PMCs, etc.
but we'd maybe still keep the current mailing lists, ie not completely
dissolve the community. We might even end up with
java-framework-discussion@apache.org, if I understand correctly the
proposals on reog@apache.org.
cheers,
Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
The same situation exists for the Merlin work. In fact most of my
current time is focussed on dealing with CORBA based components using
Merlin as the activation/deployment model. In the case of Merlin the
lifecycle management is pluggable which means that in one scenario I may
be runing up a Avalon classic component, but in another scanerio I may
be deploying a CORBA service. The relationship to Avalon is much more
about implemetation depedencies (as oopsed to application scope).
Charles Benett wrote:
> I think one of the problems with Avalon adoption is that the project
> is so broad that people get confused. So I am not convinced that
> Berin's proposal is good.
>
> I think it would be very useful to promote Phoenix to the same level
> as Avalon. If my understanding is correct, while Phoenix is built on
> Avalon, the applications hosted by a Phoenix server do not need to be
> Avalon based. So having Phoneix under Avalon just confuses things.
> (Witness Jakarta James).
>
> Charles
>
>
>
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be
>>> getting
>>> sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
>>> (like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
>>> conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
>>> kind of 'uber-project'.
>>>
>>> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
>>> size and scope of the avalon project?
>>>
>>> I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
>>> avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
>>> figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>>>
>>> There'd perhaps be
>>>
>>> avalon.apache.org
>>> phoenix.apache.org
>>> logkit.apache.org
>>> altrmi.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> *IF* we do this, I would like to see one
>>
>> avalon.apache.org
>>
>> and underneath it we would see
>>
>> Framework
>> LogKit
>> Excalibur
>> Cornerstone
>> Phoenix
>>
>> And all the Apps would be promoted to the Avalon.apache.org status
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Charles Benett <ch...@apache.org>.
I think one of the problems with Avalon adoption is that the project is
so broad that people get confused. So I am not convinced that Berin's
proposal is good.
I think it would be very useful to promote Phoenix to the same level as
Avalon. If my understanding is correct, while Phoenix is built on
Avalon, the applications hosted by a Phoenix server do not need to be
Avalon based. So having Phoneix under Avalon just confuses things.
(Witness Jakarta James).
Charles
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be getting
>> sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
>> (like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
>> conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
>> kind of 'uber-project'.
>>
>> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
>> size and scope of the avalon project?
>>
>> I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
>> avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
>> figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>>
>> There'd perhaps be
>>
>> avalon.apache.org
>> phoenix.apache.org
>> logkit.apache.org
>> altrmi.apache.org
>
>
> *IF* we do this, I would like to see one
>
> avalon.apache.org
>
> and underneath it we would see
>
> Framework
> LogKit
> Excalibur
> Cornerstone
> Phoenix
>
> And all the Apps would be promoted to the Avalon.apache.org status
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be getting
> sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
> (like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
> conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
> kind of 'uber-project'.
>
> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
> size and scope of the avalon project?
>
> I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
> avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
> figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>
> There'd perhaps be
>
> avalon.apache.org
> phoenix.apache.org
> logkit.apache.org
> altrmi.apache.org
*IF* we do this, I would like to see one
avalon.apache.org
and underneath it we would see
Framework
LogKit
Excalibur
Cornerstone
Phoenix
And all the Apps would be promoted to the Avalon.apache.org status
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be getting
>sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
>(like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
>conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
>kind of 'uber-project'.
>
>Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
>size and scope of the avalon project?
>
>I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
>avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
>figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>
I think we are overdue for some reorganization :-)
I've put together an outline of the Avalon projects below together with
a quick and dirty summary of the status as far as I am aware. I would be
interested in filling out this list and getting a better idea of what's
dead, what's released, what active, what's dormant, what's already been
shifted over to commons ... i.e. to get a bettewr picture of where we are.
Please note that a "?" just means "I don't know what the current status
is"!
Maybe we can try to break out at least what is active versus what is
graveyard, together with separation of special cases. That would help a
lot in getting an idea of the implication of a reorganization.
* avalon/framework active/released
* avalon/logkit active/released
* avalon/testlet graveyard ?
* excalibur/altrmi active
* excalibur/assembly active
* excalibur/baxter ?
* excalibur/cache ?
* excalibur/cli ?
* excalibur/collections ?
* excalibur/concurrent ?
* excalibur/configuration active/released
* excalibur/container active
* excalibur/containerkit ?
* excalibur/converter ?
* excalibur/csframework ?
* excalibur/datasource ?
* excalibur/event active
* excalibur/extension active (comming up to a release
sometime soon?)
* excalibur/fortress active (moving towards release)
* excalibur/i18n active/released
* excalibur/info active
* excalibur/instrument active
* excalibur/instrument-client active
* excalibur/instrument-server active
* excalibur/interceptor ?
* excalibur/io ?
* excalibur/jprocess ?
* excalibur/loader ?
* excalibur/logger active/release
* excalibur/merlin replaced by excalibur/assembly
* excalibur/meta active
* excalibur/monitor ?
* excalibur/naming ?
* excalibur/policy ?
* excalibur/pool active/release
* excalibur/sourceresolve ?
* excalibur/store ?
* excalibur/tar ?
* excalibur/testcase ?
* excalibur/thread ?
* excalibur/threadcontext ?
* excalibur/tools ?
* excalibur/tweety special case
* excalibur/util ?
* excalibur/xfc active
* excalibur/xmlbundle ?
* excalibur/xmlutil ?
* excalibur/zip ?
* avalon-apps/db ?
* avalon-apps/enterprise active - candiate incubator project
* avalon-apps/ftpserver ?
* avalon-apps/hsql ?
* avalon-apps/httpproxy ? (doc suggests this project is only a
demo)
* avalon-apps/infomover special case
* avalon-apps/overlord ?
* avalon-apps/phyre ?
* avalon-apps/servak active
* avalon-apps/simpleserver ?
* avalon-apps/xcommander ?
* phoenix active/release
* cornerstone/channels ?
* cornerstone/connection ?
* cornerstone/datasource ?
* cornerstone/dom ?
* cornerstone/masterstore ?
* cornerstone/packet ?
* cornerstone/rmification ?
* cornerstone/sax ?
* cornerstone/scheduler ?
* cornerstone/security ?
* cornerstone/soapification ?
* cornerstone/sockets active/release
* cornerstone/threads active/release
* cornerstone/transport ?
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: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Marc Schier <we...@earthlink.net>.
> > Then Avalon would be left with threee things. Client API for components
(aka
> > Framework), Containers for Client API (aka Fortress/Phoenix/Merlin) and
some
> > Services (though I am not sure whether these belong in another project
or in
> > commons or what).
>
> The Turbine folks, who are now moving steadily to Avalon based as you
> know, have showed interest in a repository for Avalon Components.
IMO The repository idea is especially important for COP. The nice thing
about COP is that you can use a lot of things that were already done in your
work. Putting Avalon components in Commons is I think a mistake, since no
one looking for a specific component to do a job will go through the work
seperating non-components and utilities from the actual component
implementations. It might hinder the adoption of the framework. I know,
same applies currently to Excalibur, and that's why the utilities (io,
concurrent, collections and so on) should go into commons.
>
> For me it's
> avalon-services.apache.org
>
> or
> services.apache.org
>
> or simply in
> commons.apache.org
As I said, I don't think it's a good place there.
>
> NOTE:
>
> IIUC commons.apache.org has been voted
>
> incubator.apache.org has also been voted successfully
>
> > At times I have thought that moving Phoenix+Cornerstone+Apps to a new
project
> > would be a good thing and then at other times I hate the idea so ... ;)
A good idea IMO would also be to merge cornerstone and maybe apps with
excalibur to form a service repository, maybe under the name of cornerstone,
or Excalibur, or 'services'. All these projects are component repositiories
anyway already.
-------------------
Marc Schier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:17, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > Then Avalon would be left with threee things. Client API for components
> > (aka Framework), Containers for Client API (aka Fortress/Phoenix/Merlin)
> > and some Services (though I am not sure whether these belong in another
> > project or in commons or what).
>
> The Turbine folks, who are now moving steadily to Avalon based as you
> know, have showed interest in a repository for Avalon Components.
That would be kool.
> IIUC commons.apache.org has been voted
And I am involved so if you have any request feel free to prod me or else come
join general@commons.apache.org
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
---------------------------------------------------
Murphy's law - "Anything that can go wrong, will."
(Actually, this is Finagle's law, which in itself
shows that Finagle was right.)
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:35, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>>Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
>>size and scope of the avalon project?
>>
>>I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
>>avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
>>figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>>
>>There'd perhaps be
>>
>>avalon.apache.org
>>phoenix.apache.org
>>logkit.apache.org
>>altrmi.apache.org
>>...
>
>
> Personally I would like to see testlet and some of the excalibur stuff go to
> the graveyard. LogKit be promoted and large chunks of excalibur moved to
> commons.apache.org or incubator.
+1
> Then Avalon would be left with threee things. Client API for components (aka
> Framework), Containers for Client API (aka Fortress/Phoenix/Merlin) and some
> Services (though I am not sure whether these belong in another project or in
> commons or what).
The Turbine folks, who are now moving steadily to Avalon based as you
know, have showed interest in a repository for Avalon Components.
For me it's
avalon-services.apache.org
or
services.apache.org
or simply in
commons.apache.org
NOTE:
IIUC commons.apache.org has been voted
incubator.apache.org has also been voted successfully
> At times I have thought that moving Phoenix+Cornerstone+Apps to a new project
> would be a good thing and then at other times I hate the idea so ... ;)
--
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: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:35, Leo Simons wrote:
> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
> size and scope of the avalon project?
>
> I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
> avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
> figure out how broad the support for this is =)
>
> There'd perhaps be
>
> avalon.apache.org
> phoenix.apache.org
> logkit.apache.org
> altrmi.apache.org
> ...
Personally I would like to see testlet and some of the excalibur stuff go to
the graveyard. LogKit be promoted and large chunks of excalibur moved to
commons.apache.org or incubator.
Then Avalon would be left with threee things. Client API for components (aka
Framework), Containers for Client API (aka Fortress/Phoenix/Merlin) and some
Services (though I am not sure whether these belong in another project or in
commons or what).
At times I have thought that moving Phoenix+Cornerstone+Apps to a new project
would be a good thing and then at other times I hate the idea so ... ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------
| If you turn on the light quickly enough, |
| you can see what the dark looks like. |
-----------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
RE: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>.
> From: Leo Simons [mailto:leosimons@apache.org]
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might
> be getting sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of
> larger-scale reorg (like moving projects out of jakarta all
> the way to the top conceptually), which are also especially
> relevant to avalon as it is a kind of 'uber-project'.
>
> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors
> like the size and scope of the avalon project?
No.
> avalon.apache.org
> phoenix.apache.org
> logkit.apache.org
> altrmi.apache.org
> ...
OK. I'm fine with the above, and I'm sure we can hammer out a
good structure (what projects go top-level, etc.). Bu the real
brilliance is in:
> incubator.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
> graveyard.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
YES! +one million. Finally, an end to the continuous spawning
of subprojects.
> commons.apache.org/lots-of-stuff-now-at-avalon
+1
> along with probably different cvs repos, voting/access
> rights, web pages, PMCs, etc.
>
> but we'd maybe still keep the current mailing lists, ie not
> completely dissolve the community. We might even end up with
> java-framework-discussion@apache.org, if I understand
> correctly the proposals on reog@apache.org.
That's OK.
/LS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: question: would we like avalon split?
Posted by Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>.
On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 04:35 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> I've ben reading reorg@apache.org. For one, it seems we might be
> getting
> sourcecast, which is cool. There is also talk of larger-scale reorg
> (like moving projects out of jakarta all the way to the top
> conceptually), which are also especially relevant to avalon as it is a
> kind of 'uber-project'.
thanks for bringing this up here. the discussion on the reorg list has
been increasing at a dizzying rate!
> Question rizes: do current avalon committers and contributors like the
> size and scope of the avalon project?
its okay (ie kinda-world). more manageable chunks would be excellent
though.
> I know some of us (me, pete, for starters) feel actually splitting
> avalon into multiple pieces would be good. This is a quick poll to
> figure out how broad the support for this is =)
+1
My concern is with excalibur. Yes, there is a LOT of stuff in there
that should be in a commons. I believe the jakarta-commons has, in the
past, rejected the notion of having the avalon-framework jar in their
cvs or tied to one of the commons projects (with the notion of wanting
commons projects to be dependency free, but that seems to have fallen
by the wayside somewhat now since everyone wants logging :)
> along with probably different cvs repos, voting/access rights, web
> pages, PMCs, etc.
a "real" PMC, more akin to httpd than jakarta's...
> but we'd maybe still keep the current mailing lists, ie not completely
> dissolve the community. We might even end up with
> java-framework-discussion@apache.org, if I understand correctly the
> proposals on reog@apache.org.
yup, that is one of the proposals.. "if you won't cooperate, at least
share the same playground".
-pete
--
peter royal -> proyal@apache.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>