« Return to Thread: Spring

Re: Spring

by Marcel Overdijk :: Rate this Message:

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.

« Return to Thread: Spring