incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Incubate new podling, "River" (nee Braintree, nee..., nee Jini)
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:19:33 GMT

On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:09 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:46 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> It is with great relief and hope that I propose that the Apache  
>>>> Incubator PMC vote to incubate a new podling, to be known as  
>>>> "River". You may be familiar with this project as it has been  
>>>> discussed under other names, including Braintree and Jini.  I've  
>>>> actually lost track of the Quest for a Name, and actually feel  
>>>> very responsible for this naming mess, for which I apologize.
>>>> Therefore, please vote on the proposal that follows :
>>>> [ ] +1 Accept River as a new podling as described below
>>>> [ ] -1 Do not accept the new podling (provide reason, please)
>>> Could you address the overlap with other ASF projects and podlings
>>> which are in similar technology space?
>> There are none doing Jini at this time.
>>> Why a new and distinct
>>> podling and not joining/helping them?
>> See above :)
> I think that the proposal should at least address that...
> People see "hey another SOA project, architecture for services"

it's a little different.  Jini is an old and I would say "fundamental  
technology" for service infrastructure in the java platform, very  
different from today's "SOA".

I'll let someone else argue my point, as I have to go christmas  
shopping.  If no one does, I'll do it when I get back.

They are fundamentally different (and we always allow competing impls  

> and need to know how River is different and unique by
> anticipating the question :)

Yeah.  Well, I have a basic understanding of what Jini is, and I  
never confuse the two.   I certainly can understand how someone  
unfamiliar with it would be confused.

> Also, one thing that had been discussed is better clarification
> in proposals regarding the Initial List of Committers
> and the Initial List of PPMC Members... To avoid the
> issues that popped up with CXF.

We'll argue it out once/if the podling starts, but I was going to  
suggest that we run it in the fashion of Harmony - that we wait until  
those that are listed engage and participate, and then give them  
commit, and have the mentors build the PPMC in parallel based on  
engagement and participation.


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

View raw message