incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Hepper <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet - Pluto
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:24:21 GMT
> I don't group all IBM'ers, really - I actually believe IBM'ers do tons 
> of good in many open source projects. Also I think IBM itself is a 
> somewhat good open source citizen in several regards.
> But it is not individuals that propose this particular project, as I 
> understand it: it is IBM and BEA. And it was IBM that, in my view, 
> dumped the JSR 168 RI and then fled - not any individuals as such.

I don't agree with this, after the JSR 168 was final in Oct 2003 IBMers 
continued to work on the RI to get to the 1.0.1 release.
I did still write comments and emails in 2004 / 2005.
After 1.0.1 was finished a discussion in the community started to 
re-factor that code and create 1.1. It is true that the release of 1.1 
took quite some time, but the discussions on the mailing list started 
quite soon after 1.0.1 was out AFAIR.

Another thing to consider is that in order to really create a new 
version with new portlet features you need to have a new JSR. In in that 
case it took 2 years until V2.0 was started at the JCP.

> I don't think Apache necessarily is the right place to dump a JSR RI and 
> TCK implementation (because, lets face that, it isn't *developed* here) 
> - it goes against the entire grain of Apache, AFAIU.

Technically only the version that is submitted to the JCP is the RI, so 
in case of the Pluto it was the 1.0 code base from Oct 03.
If you compare that version to the current 1.1 driver I think the 
project made a lot of progress in is much better usable now. This would 
have not occurred if you would just host the code drop without development.
Also these development effort is now integrated into the new version 2.0.

> At least, if it is put here, then just don't pretend that it more than 
> that either: It's just the RI and TCK implementations, staying at Apache 
> as Apache are good guardians of code on a general basis.
> Thus, if it happens, this particular project's name shouldn't be 
> anything fancy, probably not include the name "Apache", maybe just be 
> JSR-235 with two subfolders: RI and TCK.
>    On the other side, some server implementing JSR-235 could be called 
> Apache What-Ever, would run its own incubation, have its own 
> infrastructure, possibly use the RI as a code starting point - but 
> nothing more. This would keep the distinction very clear. The goals 
> seems too different to mix.
> Endre.


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

View raw message