incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Santiago Gala" <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet - Pluto
Date Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:10:19 GMT
On Feb 4, 2008 7:24 AM, Stefan Hepper <> wrote:
> > 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.

This is, in my opinion, what is actually killing  the processes is:
the need to have a JSR leading the way. This, together with the
complicated mindset that java coding seems to promote nowadays. While
the JSR crawls slowly to get a version out, much faster evolution for
the same concepts is going on out of the JCP (which is, IMO,
completely dead).

I found the whole thing very frustrating. I think the JCP is mostly
dragging software development nowadays. For a clear example on this,
see how active portlet aggregation development is completely out of
JSR-168/JSR-286 for Facebook, etc. and the whole OpenSocial
initiative, which is the only area where I'm seeing real activity as
opposed to maintenance.


> > 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.
> Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message