On 3/16/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about ActiveCluster & ActiveIO? :) They are "architectural > component of AMQ" as well?
Yes Both those codebases sprang out of the ActiveMQ code (developed by a subset of the ActiveMQ committers) but they turned out to be way too small to really deserve to be separate projects - both libraries are pretty much complete with little development activitity; so we merged them back into ActiveMQ as modules. ActiveIO is a low level IO module which ActiveMQ depends on for NIO & AIO support but can be reused by other Geronimo projects like OpenEJB; ActiveCluster is a clustering layer implemented with ActiveMQ but providing a slightly higher level abstraction to node membership than the JMS API which already WADI uses and other clustering services in Geronimo could use too. One of the main reasons for wanting to unify the Geronimo sub projects together - even if its just for a short while until things move TLP - is so we can more easily move code around to where it really belongs and consolidate infrastructural code across technical areas (web, JMS, EJB, JMX, JBI etc). e.g. I can imagine code from the ActiveCluster module merging with WADI into some new Geronimo cluster module one day - or it might just remain a module in ActiveMQ. ActiveIO could maybe merge with code from OpenEJB and XBean into code in Geronimo for a generic Geronimo IO module etc. One of the big motivations for moving all the sub projects to Apache was that there was lots of similar chunks of code in the sub projects - and in Geronimo itself - that really needed unifcation and consolidation which is harder to do when every project is effectively its own TLP with different PMCs and committers. James On 3/16/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > On 3/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> - The presence of ActiveCluster/ActiveIO which were separate > projects > > >>> in codehaus (is the active cluster code inside the milestone? i > don't > > >>> see a separate jar). > > >>> > > >>> > > >> These are two small libraries used in AMQ that don't warrant their > own > > >> project. The original founders of those projects had big aspirations > at > > >> the time they were formed at the CodeHaus a few years back. If they > had > > >> known what was in store for their future, maybe it would have been > done > > >> differently. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. > > >> > > >> > > >>> - The lack of discussion on say the OpenWire stuff. I see one status > > >>> email[1] that's it. the other 26 people don't seem to have any > opinion > > >>> on it. Are people talking offline? > > >>> > > >>> > > >> OpenWire has been around for a long time, way before incubation, so > most > > >> of the development issues were worked out a long time ago. You'll > see > > >> bursts of traffic about it as people add new language bindings. > > >> However, I see a lot of discussion about it this month. A large > bulk > > >> of the communication on the AMQ list is about OpenWire C/C++. > > >> > > > > > > Sorry to harp on a bit more with generic opinions that may or may not > apply :) > > > > > > A 3-deep umbrella is another warning sign. I've found that the > > > subprojects of subprojects are much harder for a PMC to maintain > > > oversight over - given that they can't have sub-PMCs as such would be > > > an example of redundant foundationing. Over the time many of the PMC > > > don't even know that they exist. > > > > > > > Good point but I'm not sure that it applies here. OpenWire is an > > architectural component of AMQ. > > > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
