RE: Spring

Hi Graeme et al.

Cutting away at the hyperbole and foaming-at-the-mouth comments I have
been reading on other forums/blogs (nice to see most people here
discussing this rationally), I think there is still some perplexing
issues that might affect grails.

First, I think that the SS guys deserve to make money. They make a damn
good product that IMHO has revolutionized the industry. I am not certain
this is the best approach for other open-source projects though, and
community cooperation is open-source's bread and butter.

For instance, say Graeme decides to fork out the dough to get on a
maintenance release. But Grails is open source, and he knows that the
Grails community rightfully expects to be able to build the grails
source themselves.  How do they get access to the pay-only jars?

Also, people supplying their on spring jars built off the tips of
maintenance branches (to get their needed patches) are now running
grails against untested Spring versions. You start up your beautiful web
app, see a deep-dish groovy stack trace, who do blame?  Right, you blame
Grails, even thought somewhere around line 475 of the stack trace (if
you looked) you would find a "method not found" exception caused by
grails not finding a spring method that the official Grails build jar
has.

Graeme, as an important user and contributor to Spring, have you had any
discussions internally or with the SS folks on how to get around these
issues?

Jay Guidos

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcel Overdijk [mailto:marceloverdijk@...]
Sent: September 26, 2008 9:35 AM
To: user@...
Subject: Re: [grails-user] Spring


I agree with Erik that this policy change should not be underestimated.

I think a lot of people (including myself) are trying to bring Grails
under
the attention of their managers and/or are starting their first
commercial
projects with Grails.

But now with Spring's change in policy people will be more careful and
think
twice. Also for management the risk to need expensive subscriptions
could be
a blocker in this. Especially for small to medium (startup) projects.


Cheers,
Marcel





Erik Pragt wrote:
>
>
>
> Graeme Rocher-2 wrote:
>>
>> We have a good relationship with the guys at SpringSource and don't
>> have any immediate concerns no. I think there is a slight
overreaction
>> to the policy in that thread
>>
>
> Sorry Graeme, but I think your taking things a bit to lightly here.
>
> This change in policy is a huge risk for any Spring related project,
but
> also for any project which relies on Spring. I don't think that having
'a
> good relationship' will result in: Instead of charging $25.000 for it,
we
> give it for free. If that was the case, people would just download
Grails
> to get the latest Spring version from it.
>
> Since I think the future of Spring as a framework (especially with the
new
> money focusses approach) is a bit uncertain, I also fear a little bit
for
> Grails, since it so strongly depends on Spring. I'm not about to start
a
> panic here, but I think I need to be a little be more convinced about
the
> future of Grails + Spring before I'm at not concerned about the future
of
> Grails anymore.
>
> So: any idea on how this relationship could help Grails?
>
> Erik
>
> PS: This is not theoretical at all: Grails Remoting needs Spring
2.5.5.
> Whith this policy in effect, Spring 2.5.5 would never have been
released
> to the public, I wouldn't have been able to use Grails in combination
with
> Grails Remoting, and I would have to find a different solution. Just
some
> context for my worries.
>

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Spring-tp19609427p19690873.html
Sent from the grails - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email