You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tamaya.apache.org by Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> on 2016/08/17 22:17:17 UTC
Modules Overview
Hi all
I have put together a short overview about the current
Tamaya Module
s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in the
core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
per module.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
J Anatole
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
I think that could make sense, especially for many that connect Tamaya to
other (mostly Apache) projects like Camel or Commons Configuration.
We spoke about separating other efforts (e.g. support for Units via JSR 363
or Monetary configuration if there are business cases for it based on JSR
354) but most existing modules on that list fall more or less under Apache,
so it could be good t simply put them in a separate repo and also decouple
their development lifecycles (i.E. not a single Jenkins/Maven build to
"build them all";-)
Werner
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:39 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> For the extra modules, do we want a separate git repo under ASF and if so
> what to name it? I can put in the request.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > I have put together a short overview about the current
> > Tamaya Module
> > s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in
> the
> > core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
> > added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
> > per module.
> >
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6
> q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> >
> > J Anatole
> >
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
For the extra modules, do we want a separate git repo under ASF and if so
what to name it? I can put in the request.
John
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:18 PM Anatole Tresch <at...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I have put together a short overview about the current
> Tamaya Module
> s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in the
> core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
> added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
> per module.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> J Anatole
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
Please forget this mail. I somehow missed the other mails of this thread.
Am 07.09.16 um 18:50 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer:
> Does anyone of us had a look on this? I suggest that everyone of us an
> addition column with his name and the suggestion for each module.
>
> If I remember correctly all matures modules will go to the extensions
> project. All other will go back to the sandbox. Correct?
>
>
> Oliver
>
> Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
>> \u200bHi all
>>
>> I have put together a short overview about the current \u200b
>> Tamaya Module
>> \u200bs, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay
>> in the
>> core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
>> added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
>> per module.\u200b
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> \u200b\u200b
>>
>> \u200bJ Anatole\u200b
>>
>
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Sch�nhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
Does anyone of us had a look on this? I suggest that everyone of us an
addition column with his name and the suggestion for each module.
If I remember correctly all matures modules will go to the extensions
project. All other will go back to the sandbox. Correct?
Oliver
Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> \u200bHi all
>
> I have put together a short overview about the current \u200b
> Tamaya Module
> \u200bs, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in the
> core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
> added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
> per module.\u200b
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> \u200b\u200b
>
> \u200bJ Anatole\u200b
>
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Sch�nhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like a good idea.
The "formats / types" one could also include the currently experimental
support of Commnons Config, Typesafe Config or similar backing modules.
Werner
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Oliver B. Fischer <
o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net> wrote:
> IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
> formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules support
> for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both should be
> ASF repositories.
>
> As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
> outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be included
> in our extension projects.
>
> Oliver
>
> Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
>
> Hi all
>>
>> I have put together a short overview about the current
>> Tamaya Module
>> s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in the
>> core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
>> added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
>> per module.
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7V
>> fuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> J Anatole
>>
>>
> --
> N Oliver B. Fischer
> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> P +49 30 44793251
> M +49 178 7903538
> E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> S oliver.b.fischer
> J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> X http://xing.to/obf
>
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:50 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry but I don't understand why every single extension must be developed
> > by the ASF, that makes no sense.
> >
> > E.g. a "DeviceMap competitor" or project that offers similar
> functionality
> > for the Apache Webserver, http://www.apachemobilefilter.org/ is not an
> ASF
> > project either ;-)
> >
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. This is probably a TM violation. I'll
> follow up outside of Tamaya.
>
>
Please do, especially the use of the "Apache" name could be an issue, but I
leave that to you.
>
> >
> > If existing ones like Oliver's Joda module have to stay there, I could
> > understand that (especially if the package remains "org.apache.*") but
> > nobody could prevent me, Otavio or others from offering Tamaya (or
> Archaius
> > or Apache Commons Config;-) support under
> > https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/uom-lib or a similar module to
> > combine it with JSR 363.
> >
>
> The code has been developed under the ASF. If you're going to fork it,
> fine, fork it. No one is going to stop you as long as you have proper
> notice/license in place. However, an Apache project cannot have multiple
> organizations running it. Apache projects are a group of individuals, not
> a set of organizations. If its Tamaya anything, its an apache name. You
> can build brand new extensions for Tamaya outside of the ASF, but the
> current suite is owned by the ASF.
>
>
>
> >
> > That statement forces me to scratch another "itch" again, so if it would
> be
> > a violation for Oliver, Phil or Anatole to put certain extension modules
> > (like the JodaTime one) into their own privat GitHub repository, then
> Mark
> > must certainly violate what the ASF expects by putting his stuff into his
> > own private repo under "org.apache.geronimo":
> >
> > https://github.com/struberg/javaConfig/tree/master/impl/
> src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/config
> >
> >
>
> > Or can you explain the difference?
> >
>
> Sure, I'll explain the difference. 1. No, Mark cannot use
> "org.apache.geronimo" unless he plans to donate to Geronimo (which he
> does). 2. If its source code from Tamaya, you're free to fork it, its just
> no longer an ASF represented project. It gets very hairy, and as a result
> I would prefer to not introduce an outside issue like this. Basically, we
> find podlings doing this a lot and it is not the Apache Way. Its fine to
> build a side-community derived from the main community. Its not OK when
> the side community is the same as the main community and discussions around
> the side community happen within the ASF's resources.
>
>
>
So e.g. for Oliver's JodaTime support it is a good question where to best
put that, but either under the "Type support" kind of repo or the one for
"Integration with other technologies and efforts" it should certainly be
able to keep it then.
An interesting question would be Oliver's statement
>If they are finished we should be included in our extension projects.
Judging from the experience with DeviceMap (where we saw a vast majority of
the project being donated by OpenDDR.org and its GitHub repositories, later
a former team member forked a fraction of a "design study" on how JSON
could be used into his own GitHub repo) there are possible ways for Tamaya
to accept some extension developed indepently not only when it was started.
As well as possible ways to fork certain parts. If they were found too far
away from the core interest and goals of Tamaya or say only have very few
who would ever contribute.
> >
> > I don't care what Mark does in that repo, that's between him and the ASF,
> > but I believe you're also in the board, so I'm sure you know best if he
> > violates ASF code of conduct or other regulations by doing that ;-)
> >
>
> Sounds very off topic to me.
>
>
>
I don't see why, but you answered the questions on his code above ;-)
Werner
>
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This would be a violation of what the ASF expects. Is there a reason
> > they
> > > need to be developed outside the ASF?
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:50 AM Oliver B. Fischer <
> > > o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
> > > > formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules
> > support
> > > > for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both
> should
> > > > be ASF repositories.
> > > >
> > > > As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
> > > > outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be
> > > > included in our extension projects.
> > > >
> > > > Oliver
> > > >
> > > > Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > >
> > > > > I have put together a short overview about the current
> > > > > Tamaya Module
> > > > > s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I
> > > also
> > > > > added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be
> > > done
> > > > > per module.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/
> 1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6
> > > q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > J Anatole
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > N Oliver B. Fischer
> > > > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> > > > P +49 30 44793251
> > > > M +49 178 7903538
> > > > E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> > > > S oliver.b.fischer
> > > > J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> > > > X http://xing.to/obf
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry but I don't understand why every single extension must be developed
> by the ASF, that makes no sense.
>
> E.g. a "DeviceMap competitor" or project that offers similar functionality
> for the Apache Webserver, http://www.apachemobilefilter.org/ is not an ASF
> project either ;-)
>
Thanks for pointing this out. This is probably a TM violation. I'll
follow up outside of Tamaya.
>
> If existing ones like Oliver's Joda module have to stay there, I could
> understand that (especially if the package remains "org.apache.*") but
> nobody could prevent me, Otavio or others from offering Tamaya (or Archaius
> or Apache Commons Config;-) support under
> https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/uom-lib or a similar module to
> combine it with JSR 363.
>
The code has been developed under the ASF. If you're going to fork it,
fine, fork it. No one is going to stop you as long as you have proper
notice/license in place. However, an Apache project cannot have multiple
organizations running it. Apache projects are a group of individuals, not
a set of organizations. If its Tamaya anything, its an apache name. You
can build brand new extensions for Tamaya outside of the ASF, but the
current suite is owned by the ASF.
>
> That statement forces me to scratch another "itch" again, so if it would be
> a violation for Oliver, Phil or Anatole to put certain extension modules
> (like the JodaTime one) into their own privat GitHub repository, then Mark
> must certainly violate what the ASF expects by putting his stuff into his
> own private repo under "org.apache.geronimo":
>
> https://github.com/struberg/javaConfig/tree/master/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/config
>
>
> Or can you explain the difference?
>
Sure, I'll explain the difference. 1. No, Mark cannot use
"org.apache.geronimo" unless he plans to donate to Geronimo (which he
does). 2. If its source code from Tamaya, you're free to fork it, its just
no longer an ASF represented project. It gets very hairy, and as a result
I would prefer to not introduce an outside issue like this. Basically, we
find podlings doing this a lot and it is not the Apache Way. Its fine to
build a side-community derived from the main community. Its not OK when
the side community is the same as the main community and discussions around
the side community happen within the ASF's resources.
>
> I don't care what Mark does in that repo, that's between him and the ASF,
> but I believe you're also in the board, so I'm sure you know best if he
> violates ASF code of conduct or other regulations by doing that ;-)
>
Sounds very off topic to me.
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > This would be a violation of what the ASF expects. Is there a reason
> they
> > need to be developed outside the ASF?
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:50 AM Oliver B. Fischer <
> > o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
> > > formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules
> support
> > > for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both should
> > > be ASF repositories.
> > >
> > > As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
> > > outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be
> > > included in our extension projects.
> > >
> > > Oliver
> > >
> > > Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > I have put together a short overview about the current
> > > > Tamaya Module
> > > > s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay
> in
> > > the
> > > > core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I
> > also
> > > > added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be
> > done
> > > > per module.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6
> > q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > J Anatole
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > N Oliver B. Fischer
> > > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> > > P +49 30 44793251
> > > M +49 178 7903538
> > > E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> > > S oliver.b.fischer
> > > J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> > > X http://xing.to/obf
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>.
Sorry but I don't understand why every single extension must be developed
by the ASF, that makes no sense.
E.g. a "DeviceMap competitor" or project that offers similar functionality
for the Apache Webserver, http://www.apachemobilefilter.org/ is not an ASF
project either ;-)
If existing ones like Oliver's Joda module have to stay there, I could
understand that (especially if the package remains "org.apache.*") but
nobody could prevent me, Otavio or others from offering Tamaya (or Archaius
or Apache Commons Config;-) support under
https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/uom-lib or a similar module to
combine it with JSR 363.
That statement forces me to scratch another "itch" again, so if it would be
a violation for Oliver, Phil or Anatole to put certain extension modules
(like the JodaTime one) into their own privat GitHub repository, then Mark
must certainly violate what the ASF expects by putting his stuff into his
own private repo under "org.apache.geronimo":
https://github.com/struberg/javaConfig/tree/master/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/config
Or can you explain the difference?
I don't care what Mark does in that repo, that's between him and the ASF,
but I believe you're also in the board, so I'm sure you know best if he
violates ASF code of conduct or other regulations by doing that ;-)
Werner
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> This would be a violation of what the ASF expects. Is there a reason they
> need to be developed outside the ASF?
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:50 AM Oliver B. Fischer <
> o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net>
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
> > formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules support
> > for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both should
> > be ASF repositories.
> >
> > As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
> > outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be
> > included in our extension projects.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > I have put together a short overview about the current
> > > Tamaya Module
> > > s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in
> > the
> > > core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I
> also
> > > added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be
> done
> > > per module.
> > >
> > >
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6
> q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > >
> > > J Anatole
> > >
> >
> > --
> > N Oliver B. Fischer
> > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> > P +49 30 44793251
> > M +49 178 7903538
> > E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> > S oliver.b.fischer
> > J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> > X http://xing.to/obf
> >
> >
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
This would be a violation of what the ASF expects. Is there a reason they
need to be developed outside the ASF?
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 5:50 AM Oliver B. Fischer <o....@swe-blog.net>
wrote:
> IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
> formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules support
> for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both should
> be ASF repositories.
>
> As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
> outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be
> included in our extension projects.
>
> Oliver
>
> Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I have put together a short overview about the current
> > Tamaya Module
> > s, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in
> the
> > core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
> > added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
> > per module.
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> >
> > J Anatole
> >
>
> --
> N Oliver B. Fischer
> A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
> P +49 30 44793251
> M +49 178 7903538
> E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
> S oliver.b.fischer
> J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
> X http://xing.to/obf
>
>
Re: Modules Overview
Posted by "Oliver B. Fischer" <o....@swe-blog.net>.
IMHO we should have two extension module projects. One for additional
formats, converters/data types and so on. The second for modules support
for connecting Tamaya with other systems as Consul or etcd. Both should
be ASF repositories.
As we said during our last hangout: New modules should be developed
outside of our ASF repositories. If they are finished we should be
included in our extension projects.
Oliver
Am 18.08.16 um 00:17 schrieb Anatole Tresch:
> \u200bHi all
>
> I have put together a short overview about the current \u200b
> Tamaya Module
> \u200bs, including my personal recommendation, which modules should stay in the
> core project and which modules may be moved into a separate repo. I also
> added s small note on the most important task, which IMO have to be done
> per module.\u200b
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBGG7h7okdiW0wzCKa7VfuQY8BLH6q4-iIfg7FOo67A/edit?usp=sharing
> \u200b\u200b
>
> \u200bJ Anatole\u200b
>
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Sch�nhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E o.b.fischer@swe-blog.net
S oliver.b.fischer
J oliver.b.fischer@jabber.org
X http://xing.to/obf