Menu
▾
▴
Re: [jetty-discuss] Jetty @ Eclipse ?
|
From: Juancarlo A. <ap...@gm...> - 2008-12-06 08:40:24
|
Greg, On my part, it's your call. One of the risks I see is that eclipsefying Jetty could make it more complex, when one of the hallmarks of Jetty is simplicity and minimalism. Juanca -- Juancarlo Añez - http://www.neogeny.org http://blog.neogeny.org mailto:ju...@ne... --- > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gr...@mo...] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 6:22 AM > To: Discussion for Jetty development.; jetty-dev; jetty-user; > jetty-announce > Subject: [jetty-discuss] Jetty @ Eclipse ? > > > Dear Jetty committers, contributors & community, > > It has been suggested that the Jetty project submit a proposal to move > to the Eclipse foundation. This is an suggestion that I > believe should > be given serious consideration as I can see benefits for all the > stakeholders. > > The Eclipse foundation is about much more than the Eclipse > IDE. Through > it's equinox, OSGi and runtime efforts, it is an open source > foundation > very much committed to providing the legal, procedural and technical > infrastructure for component based software, developed by > communities and > used by everyone from hobbyists through enterprises. > > The Jetty project is a successful HTTP server and servlet container, > developed by communities, with a component-based OSGi-friendly > architecture, used by hundreds of thousands of websites and embedded > in many many projects and products: not least the Eclipse IDE and > equinox runtime. > > There are obvious synergies between Eclipse and Jetty, thus we have > already responded to the suggestion with some preliminary discussions > as to how Jetty @ Eclipse could work: > > + The Jetty 6.x version would not be effected. It would remain > at codehaus and would continue to be maintained for some time. > > + The upcoming Jetty 7.x version for servlet-3.0 be hosted > by Eclipse > and would be dual licensed with both the current Apache > 2.0 license > and the Eclipse Public License (EPL). > > + Copyright assignment would remain as they are and the contributor > license agreements would be updated, probably remaining > substantially > on the lines of the apache contributors agreement, but > with aspects > of the Eclipse as well. > > + The project leadership would essentially remain the same, > but with perhaps a little less despotic power. > > + The core jetty source would be updated to use an org.eclipse > package hierarchy. > > + Some contrib packages and bundles would remain at codehaus > (eg grizzly, ant, hightide) or be offered to the related > projects (eg cometd to dojo, jboss integration to redhat). > Potentially hightide @ codehaus could receive more focus > as the app server bundle of Jetty, while jetty @ eclipse > would be the component based core. > > + The project would continue under the current leadership, with > some assistance from Eclipse sponsors. I intend to > continue to lead the project for the foreseeable > future. > > Importantly, Jetty @ eclipse would > > - not be dependent on OSGi. Jetty is already OSGi friendly and I > would expect it to become more so. But Jetty will remain > framework neutral and the components will continue to be > able to be assembled with your choice of java, jetty XML, > spring, OSGi, plexus, xbean, geronimo, jboss, Jonas, > groovy, etc. etc. > > - not be a commercial deal. No payments or contracts would be > involved. Obviously the key contributors (eg webtide) do not > see such a move as harmful to their commercial interests, but the > deal would not change the fact that those contributors would still > need to find clients and sell them their particular value > add with regards to the project. > > - not be the creation of an Eclipse Java EE application server. > Jetty would continue to be a component that integrates > well with many many software projects, including most > Java EE application servers. > > So is there a need to move or change? Why can't Jetty just > stay at codehaus and continue as a despotocracy? > > Well, we could just stay. but I think we would be leaving > a great opportunity on the table if we did so. An opportunity > that I see as having very little downside for the project > or the community. > > The key opportunity of a move to Eclipse is to grow the > Jetty community and a growing community is good for all > parties as it: > > + brings new use-cases and ideas to the project. > > + brings new potential contributors and resources. > > + provides increased opportunities for contributors > to make a commercial return on their investment in the > project, and thus in turn invest more in the project. > > + maintains momentum and activity to avoid the project > stagnating. > > I believe that a move to Eclipse will grow the Jetty > community for a number of reasons: > > + Publicity of the change and use of the Eclipse brand. > > + The addition of the choice of the EPL > > + Closer relationships with the growing OSGi communities > > + Diminishing the perception that Jetty is a 1 man or > 1 company project ( although I plan to continue to > lead the project for the foreseeable future). > > + Improved quality through more rigorous release policies > and procedures. > > + Improved legal status through the foundations due > diligence and procedures. > > Additional positives from such a move would be: > > + taking the opportunity of repackaging to fix some > bad practises (eg packages split over jars). > > + potentially some greater gravitas when representing > the projects interests in standards bodies etc. > > + the opportunity to help drive the OSGi standards > past the 2.4 servlet spec. > > So what would be the down side of this? > > - There will be a bit more procedure and process needed > before making releases. Considering the dufas 6.1.12 > release, this is a good thing for the community and > will only be a cost to the core contributors. > > - Developers will need to change their code to use > the org.eclipse packages. But this will be done > with the move to jetty 7, which will require some > API changes anyway, and tools can be provided to > ease the change. We will also take the opportunity > to fix some of the incorrect packaging issues that > have developed over the years. > > - There will be the faff of moving mailing lists and > websites etc. But I'm hoping that there may be some > additional resources available to help improve the > website. > > - We will be substantially moving away from codehaus, > who have provided us with a home for many years. > However, potentially there could be more focus on > Hightide @ codehaus as the app server distro of jetty. > > - I don't know? you tell me? What other issues > do you see or concerns do you have, if we were to > move the project to Eclipse? > > > The process of a move to Eclipse would be that after > soliciting feedback from yourselves I will then > solicit feedback from the jetty community. > > I would prepare a proposal to be presented to the Eclipse > foundation in January 2009. If accepted, we would target > EclipseCon in March for the code to be moved > to Eclipse, with a target stable release of Jetty 7 > in time for JavaOne in June. > > If any of you have explicitly maintained the copyright > of code contributed to Jetty, then I would like to seek > your confirmation that dual licensing with the EPL. > > Thanks again for your contributions to this project > and I hope that together we can continue to make Jetty > a quality software component used by many. > > regards > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------- > SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las > Vegas, Nevada. > The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at > MIX09 to help > pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009 > .visitmix.com/ > _______________________________________________ > jetty-discuss mailing list > jet...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jetty-discuss |
