On Feb 4, 2008 7:24 AM, Stefan Hepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Regards Santiago > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
