incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <>
Subject RE: Preventing exclusionary practices in Incubating projects
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:05:37 GMT
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> James Strachan wrote:
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > > I know for a fact that WADI, ActiveIO and Trifork guys have
> > > been talking about coming up with a single framework for IO.
> > > James hinted in a prev message and there have been some
> > > references in emails on dev@geronimo list[1] and no traffic on
> > > activemq list (as far as i can tell)
> >
> > Thats kinda the point - as up to now most of this code has not
> > been part of Geronimo and so wouldn't have been discussed on the
> > Geronimo lists.

But what about on the ActiveMQ list?

> > Once all the code has made it to the incubator, then we can start
> > discussing this on the Geronimo list

What code is remaining, and what would the Geronimo list have to do with
discussion on these incubator project lists?

> > there's lots of things we could do to consodiate code within the
> > Geronimo family of projects - once they are all at Geronimo.

You mean the ASF family of projects, and once they are all at the ASF?

> I tried to facilitate discussions between the various ASF java
> projects.  There were some interesting ad hoc discussions w/
> Geronimo, Trifork, WADI, ActiveIO, and Directory people.

Yes, ActiveIO and MINA appear to have overlap that could consolidate, and
there seemed to be some sense amongst participants that a best of breed
could come from both, where each had something to contribute that improved
on the other.  Not a drop-in fit, but potentially a very worthwhile

The discussions that started at ApacheCon do not seem to have transited to
our mailing lists, e.g., activemq-dev or mina-dev.

	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message