On Friday 16 March 2007 10:06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Incubator PMC will set guidelines for incubator projects and will set > best practices (not obligatory) to other ASF projects. Everyone else > can do what they want.
Right, but that again defeats the whole point of having the incubator repository. If other projects can easily bypass the requirement that people "opt in" to incubator artifacts, then the users of those projects still wouldn't know they are using incubator artifacts unless they look at the dependencies report. For them, it would make no difference whether the artifacts came from central or p.a.o. (other than the build is slower coming from p.a.o) You basically make it "less pleasant" for users of apache projects, but have no affect on others. Is that good for the Apache brand? Dan > > thanks, > dims > > On 3/16/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So basically, the Incubator PMC now wants to start defining policies > > to control the actions of other top level Apache projects on how > > dependencies are made? > > > > What about projects at codehaus.org? How about sourceforge? > > Google? ObjectWeb? > > > > I'll take Woden as an example. As pretty much the only pure java > > WSDL 2.0 implementation, there's probably a bunch of projects > > OUTSIDE of apache that will require it. Are you going to go and > > tell them all they have to use <scope>provided</scope>? Isn't that > > some sort of restriction that the ASL is supposed to prevent? > > What's to stop them from ignoring you? Absolutely nothing. > > Anyone that takes a dependency on those projects could/would get an > > incubator artifact without explicitly asking for/authorizing it. > > > > Dan > > > > On Friday 16 March 2007 09:42, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > Noel, > > > > > > Please see below: > > > > > > On 3/16/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > > > > Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up > > > > > their pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided > > > > > mechanism), end users will have to add incubator repos > > > > > explicitly/consciously and won't get podling jars pulled in > > > > > w/o their knowledge. > > > > > > > > What's the burden imposed by this on the user? Does this mean > > > > that we could eliminate the Incubator specific repository in > > > > favor of <scope>provided</scope>? > > > > > > The burden on the user is that if he really wants to use that > > > artifact, he/she should add it in their own pom's and add the > > > repository also in their pom explicitly. > > > > > > > And is this an appropriate thing, since if Axis2 > > > > or Geronimo do that, doesn't it mean that the jar is no longer > > > > packaged with them when they release? > > > > > > No, this means that the dist may have the jars. We are focusing on > > > stopping users from auto-magically pulling in incubator artifacts > > > via m2 dependency mechansims w/o their cooperation. > > > > > > > Is that an issue? > > > > > > Depends on who you ask :) Right? > > > > > > > If the goals are to help protect users from a naive (as > > > > contrasted with an informed) dependence on projects that haven't > > > > yet earned their ASF-status, and to ensure that Incubator > > > > projects aren't just trying to cash in on the ASF-brand without > > > > adopting our methods, where are the appropriate lines of > > > > control? > > > > > > We need to add some guidelines for how projects like Axis2 and > > > Geronimo use incubator artifacts in addition to the guidelines in > > > place for the Inucbator artifacts themselves. > > > > > > > If (for the sake of argument) WS decides to ship some Incubator > > > > JAR as part of some WS release, and is supporting the release > > > > are they counting on the Incubator JAR, or on you providing > > > > certain functionality? > > > > > > They are counting on WS project. Case in point, woden is used for > > > WSDL 2.0. If woden dies, Axis2 should come up with an alternative. > > > For Geronimo, if cxf dies, there's always Axis2. FWIW, I really > > > like how G balances rather juggles multiple options Tomcat/Jetty, > > > Different flavors of JPA, Axis2/CXF etc. > > > > > > > Of course, that > > > > ought to weigh into your own decision to include the JAR in the > > > > first place. Would this be the same as a company using Roller in > > > > production to sell a service while Roller was still in the > > > > Incubator? A service purchaser is expecting a blog, but perhaps > > > > not counting on how that functionality is provided. Should it > > > > depend on whether the JAR's API is exposed, or simply some > > > > functionality that you can maintain/replace? Again, reflecting > > > > back on the goals. > > > > > > Yes, existing projects should exercise caution and plan for > > > failures. > > > > > > > --- Noel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >---- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional > > > > commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer > > IONA > > P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
