You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> on 2005/12/01 12:13:18 UTC
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
> an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
> ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
> Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
> some constraints -- does anyone know what they are?
Aren't you being a *tad* harsh here, Roy? The proposal isn't to
develop an architectural style, but software for people working in
that style. (Whatever that is...)
So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
there's an earnest effort here, and there's code that will seed it.
>
> I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a
> very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly
> don't need more than one WS/SOA federation.
WS and SOA are actually different, IMO, the former [usually] used by
the latter, but by no means required. I have no strong feelings if
this needs to be sponsored by WS for some reason, but this is day 0
of incubation, there's a long road ahead, and I think that more
information will be available further down the road. Right now, the
dynamics around SOA and SOA-ish things at Apache (and elsewhere) are
very fluid, and I'm betting we're going to see a bunch of interesting
changes.
>
> Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product
> line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic
> decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release.
> That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each
> working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague
> relationships.
I haven't seen the code, but they seem to be down the road to such a
thing already, and just want to do it here, with a major benefit of
dissolving said 'opaque mist' :)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Am with you Roy :)
-- dims
On 12/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
> >> an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
> >> ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
> >> Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
> >> some constraints -- does anyone know what they are?
> >
> > Aren't you being a *tad* harsh here, Roy? The proposal isn't to
> > develop an architectural style, but software for people working in
> > that style. (Whatever that is...)
>
> Not really. When I am harsh, LCD screens melt.
>
> > So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
> > there's an earnest effort here, and there's code that will seed it.
>
> Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
> against it.
> SOA should not be the proposal. What dims described is much better.
>
> Just to be entirely blunt, any vague container proposal is doomed to
> failure as a collaboration because it is nothing more than a design
> pissing contest. There has to be some common goal that is clearly
> definable in order for a group of independent collaborators to keep
> from strangling each other over a long-term project. The key to
> such projects is to define the goal and desired properties up front
> so that everyone entering the project agrees to them and thus have
> objective criteria over which they can evaluate designs. The criteria
> can change over time, provided the project agrees to that change.
> People who want to pursue different goals or maintain a different
> set of criteria can start a competing project. I personally like
> it when Apache competes with itself.
>
> So, that is what I want to see in an incubator proposal. I want to
> see a clear indication that the project is something that a group
> of independent software developers can collaborate on without ASF
> board intervention.
>
> ....Roy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
>> an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
>> ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
>> Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
>> some constraints -- does anyone know what they are?
>
> Aren't you being a *tad* harsh here, Roy? The proposal isn't to
> develop an architectural style, but software for people working in
> that style. (Whatever that is...)
Not really. When I am harsh, LCD screens melt.
> So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
> there's an earnest effort here, and there's code that will seed it.
Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
against it.
SOA should not be the proposal. What dims described is much better.
Just to be entirely blunt, any vague container proposal is doomed to
failure as a collaboration because it is nothing more than a design
pissing contest. There has to be some common goal that is clearly
definable in order for a group of independent collaborators to keep
from strangling each other over a long-term project. The key to
such projects is to define the goal and desired properties up front
so that everyone entering the project agrees to them and thus have
objective criteria over which they can evaluate designs. The criteria
can change over time, provided the project agrees to that change.
People who want to pursue different goals or maintain a different
set of criteria can start a competing project. I personally like
it when Apache competes with itself.
So, that is what I want to see in an incubator proposal. I want to
see a clear indication that the project is something that a group
of independent software developers can collaborate on without ASF
board intervention.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Now - can someone give me an idea of how "open" the model is? In other words
> are the specifications behind Tuscany open to being modified? Will they be
> submitted to a standards body and in what timeframe? It would be good to
> know that Apache and in particular the committers can have input into the
> model and not just write code to a fixed specification that has no way for
> committers to improve except if they work for one of the publishing
> companies.
>
The specifications themselves are not final and are open for suggestions
and improvements. Facilitating this was one reason they have been held
back from submission to a standards body at this time though the
intention is to do so in the future. When? Well, when they're ready.
On the other hand, Tuscany is not a "reference" implementation of the
specifications, constrained by the functionality they define. As an open
and independent community we are free to develop the features and
function we think most important. Portability and interoperability, as
provided by the specifications, are naturally very important and I think
our implementation will reflect that; however, innovation, flexibility
and responsiveness to users' needs are equally important and we have the
opportunity to provide those as well.
There are many things that we've thought of doing that are not covered
by the specifications; some of those are in the proposal, others aren't.
Implementing them, along with other people's new ideas, is one way in
which we hope to build the developer community.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@gmail.com>.
Firstly I have to say I support this on principle. I think - looking at the
documents briefly - that there is overlap to a number of Apache projects (
e.g. HiveMind),
but I believe in a broad set of components in Apache. I know that the
proposal has a wide variety of experienced Apache committers, but if I am
happy to help mentor this.
Now - can someone give me an idea of how "open" the model is? In other words
are the specifications behind Tuscany open to being modified? Will they be
submitted to a standards body and in what timeframe? It would be good to
know that Apache and in particular the committers can have input into the
model and not just write code to a fixed specification that has no way for
committers to improve except if they work for one of the publishing
companies.
Paul
On 12/1/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
> > an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
> > ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
> > Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
> > some constraints -- does anyone know what they are?
>
> Aren't you being a *tad* harsh here, Roy? The proposal isn't to
> develop an architectural style, but software for people working in
> that style. (Whatever that is...)
>
> So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
> there's an earnest effort here, and there's code that will seed it.
>
> >
> > I think we need to reorganize around federations, but that's a
> > very long discussion that I have no time for right now. We certainly
> > don't need more than one WS/SOA federation.
>
> WS and SOA are actually different, IMO, the former [usually] used by
> the latter, but by no means required. I have no strong feelings if
> this needs to be sponsored by WS for some reason, but this is day 0
> of incubation, there's a long road ahead, and I think that more
> information will be available further down the road. Right now, the
> dynamics around SOA and SOA-ish things at Apache (and elsewhere) are
> very fluid, and I'm betting we're going to see a bunch of interesting
> changes.
>
> >
> > Please make the proposal specific to a single, technical product
> > line that has objective criteria against which you can make basic
> > decisions about what to release and when it is ready to release.
> > That way we aren't just sponsoring a bunch of individuals, each
> > working on their own solo project within an opaque mist of vague
> > relationships.
>
> I haven't seen the code, but they seem to be down the road to such a
> thing already, and just want to do it here, with a major benefit of
> dissolving said 'opaque mist' :)
>
> geir
>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> [I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
>> because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
>> problem]
>
> Everyone is having mail problems -- the apache relay is misbehaving.
I was getting mailbox full from my ISP in the US because I couldn't
delete things from my POP account for a while. (was traveling...)
>
>> Roy Responded :
>>> Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
>>> against it.
>>> SOA should not be the proposal.
>>
>> I think I understand the problem - it's the presentation in the
>> proposal - and having reviewed the proposal, I should have caught
>> it. It reads like "mubble wubble SOA woogie blah foo SOA fwink
>> thoobie wk SOA boo SOA apooth SOA SOA ... SOA ... "
>>
>> However, this proposal is about SCA specifically, not SOA generally.
>
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
>
> I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the
> wiki.
> There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> outside the proposal authors will understand.
Great. It seems then that we've cleared up the misunderstanding due
to the wording in the proposal, and our next step will be to update
the formal proposal to correct this.
I think the hesitancy in updating the proposal was to ensure that we
understood where you are coming from, and if our clarification
resolves your problems.
Thanks
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
Please check the latest Wiki changes for Tuscany.
thanks,
dims
On 12/6/05, Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> > > > *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> > > > needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> > > > rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
> > > >
> > > > I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
> > > > There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> > > > exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> > > > outside the proposal authors will understand.
> > >
> > > I held off making changes as I thought discussing a moving target would
> > > be confusing. I have now updated the proposal on the wiki expanding the
> > > Rationale section to indicate that we will be implementing the SCA
> > > specifications starting from an initial contribution.
> >
> > [ ... ]
> > personally speaking, I'd prefer something more declarative with a new and
> > better first paragraph. it's hard to build a community around a project
> > which takes three paragraphs to get to the point. IMHO the first two
> > paragraphs reads (to me) more like justifying a business case and less like
> > a call to arms for developers ;)
>
> I've rewritten the rationale to be substantially more direct:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TuscanyProposal
>
> Robert's point is well taken, as we've been socializing this idea in
> various circles and justifying a business case was definitely a part
> of some of those discussions. I understand that is not the primary
> concern here and should probably have dealt with that earlier, mea
> culpa.
>
> Roy, does this address your concerns over excessive vagueness and lack
> of a crisp statement of a common development goal?
>
> k
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Kenneth Tam wrote:
> I've rewritten the rationale to be substantially more direct:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TuscanyProposal
>
> Robert's point is well taken, as we've been socializing this idea in
> various circles and justifying a business case was definitely a part
> of some of those discussions. I understand that is not the primary
> concern here and should probably have dealt with that earlier, mea
> culpa.
>
> Roy, does this address your concerns over excessive vagueness and lack
> of a crisp statement of a common development goal?
Yep, +1.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Kenneth Tam <ke...@gmail.com>.
On 12/5/05, robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> > > *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> > > needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> > > rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
> > >
> > > I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
> > > There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> > > exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> > > outside the proposal authors will understand.
> >
> > I held off making changes as I thought discussing a moving target would
> > be confusing. I have now updated the proposal on the wiki expanding the
> > Rationale section to indicate that we will be implementing the SCA
> > specifications starting from an initial contribution.
>
> [ ... ]
> personally speaking, I'd prefer something more declarative with a new and
> better first paragraph. it's hard to build a community around a project
> which takes three paragraphs to get to the point. IMHO the first two
> paragraphs reads (to me) more like justifying a business case and less like
> a call to arms for developers ;)
I've rewritten the rationale to be substantially more direct:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TuscanyProposal
Robert's point is well taken, as we've been socializing this idea in
various circles and justifying a business case was definitely a part
of some of those discussions. I understand that is not the primary
concern here and should probably have dealt with that earlier, mea
culpa.
Roy, does this address your concerns over excessive vagueness and lack
of a crisp statement of a common development goal?
k
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> >
> > No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> > *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> > needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> > rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
> >
> > I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
> > There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> > exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> > outside the proposal authors will understand.
> >
>
> I held off making changes as I thought discussing a moving target would
> be confusing. I have now updated the proposal on the wiki expanding the
> Rationale section to indicate that we will be implementing the SCA
> specifications starting from an initial contribution.
IMHO getting used to managing moving targets and evolving processes is
something that any potential podling needs to get used to. often building
consensus amongst a community means updating with sequential improvements so
that the community can react to the current state of the document. it may
take several iterations to reach something that no one feels is too
unsatisfactory so it's best to keep the momentum high and the iterations
quick. sometimes the diff's can slip under people's radar so it's often good
to follow an update with a reply to the thread.
personally speaking, I'd prefer something more declarative with a new and
better first paragraph. it's hard to build a community around a project
which takes three paragraphs to get to the point. IMHO the first two
paragraphs reads (to me) more like justifying a business case and less like
a call to arms for developers ;) Karl Fogel (http://producingoss.com/) does
a better job than I do at explaining what makes a good mission for an open
source project so that might be worth consulting that book.
i know that it might sound like we're making a lot out of a little but IMO
it's very important for the long term health of a project to have a clearly
defined scope. this lack of definition has hurt the ASF in the past and that
may help to explain why we're kean to ensure the same mistakes are not
repeated with new projects.
- robert
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@us.ibm.com>.
Roy T.Fielding wrote:
>
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
>
> I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
> There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
> exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
> outside the proposal authors will understand.
>
I held off making changes as I thought discussing a moving target would
be confusing. I have now updated the proposal on the wiki expanding the
Rationale section to indicate that we will be implementing the SCA
specifications starting from an initial contribution.
I've not seen anything from the WS PMC but if they do decide to sponsor
Tuscany I will update the wiki to reflect that change.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 07:50 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> It's isn't *that* bad.
:)
Ah, now I remember the beating we got about Synapse .. nice to see other
family members get hammered too ;-). (I think the final word to us was
"you guys should've known better" ;-))
> It includes implementations - actual code - in C++ and Java of a set
> of external specs (SCA/SDO) that are integrated with Apache Tomcat,
> Apache HTTPD, Apache Axis and the contributors have a roadmap that
> includes Axis2, Geroniomo, ActiveMQ, ServiceMix, Agila, Synapse....
>
> So there's code and a conscious reach-out to other Apache communities.
+1.
> I think the problem was that it never clearly stated early on in the
> proposal "We have an implementation of SCA in two languages , want to
> continue to work on it in the Apache style and work with other Apache
> communities"
+1. Very concrete and non-grandiose.
> (And then follow with "mediate leading thought-leaders
> to leverage synergy with other SOA stakeholders in WEB 2.0's
> distributed marketplace ontology" to get the necessary buzzword
> points.... )
I'd drop this totally and leaving it for a veep quote for a press
release (and then you can add "to build shareholder value" to it ;-)).
The proposal does not get an more ASF mileage IMO by having this.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:12:15PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
>> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
>> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
>> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
>> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday
>> be.
>
> Absolutely agreed.
>
> As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the proposal other than vague
> hand-waving. -- justin
It's isn't *that* bad.
It includes implementations - actual code - in C++ and Java of a set
of external specs (SCA/SDO) that are integrated with Apache Tomcat,
Apache HTTPD, Apache Axis and the contributors have a roadmap that
includes Axis2, Geroniomo, ActiveMQ, ServiceMix, Agila, Synapse....
So there's code and a conscious reach-out to other Apache communities.
I think the problem was that it never clearly stated early on in the
proposal "We have an implementation of SCA in two languages , want to
continue to work on it in the Apache style and work with other Apache
communities" (And then follow with "mediate leading thought-leaders
to leverage synergy with other SOA stakeholders in WEB 2.0's
distributed marketplace ontology" to get the necessary buzzword
points.... )
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:12:15PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
Absolutely agreed.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the proposal other than vague
hand-waving. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> [I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
> because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
> problem]
Everyone is having mail problems -- the apache relay is misbehaving.
> Roy Responded :
>> Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
>> against it.
>> SOA should not be the proposal.
>
> I think I understand the problem - it's the presentation in the
> proposal - and having reviewed the proposal, I should have caught
> it. It reads like "mubble wubble SOA woogie blah foo SOA fwink
> thoobie wk SOA boo SOA apooth SOA SOA ... SOA ... "
>
> However, this proposal is about SCA specifically, not SOA generally.
No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
*actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may someday be.
I think everyone understands that now, yet nobody has updated the wiki.
There's no rush, I guess, but I do want to be clear that an e-mail
exchange is not the same as recording a mission statement that people
outside the proposal authors will understand.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
[I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
problem]
On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
> there's an earnest effort here, and there's code that will seed it.
>
Roy Responded :
>
> Sure, but unless the proposal reflects that effort I will vote
> against it.
> SOA should not be the proposal.
I think I understand the problem - it's the presentation in the
proposal - and having reviewed the proposal, I should have caught
it. It reads like "mubble wubble SOA woogie blah foo SOA fwink
thoobie wk SOA boo SOA apooth SOA SOA ... SOA ... "
However, this proposal is about SCA specifically, not SOA generally.
Granted, SCA is about SOA, so we can continue to irritate our rotator
cuffs while we wildly wave our arms when talking about it, but for
this project, there's a concrete basis for development - there are a
set of developing specs for SCA listed in the proposal, and the seed
code is the start of a concrete implementation (in two languages, no
less...). The initial goal is that implementation.
My expectation is that this will implement the spec and help drive
the spec, and the community (which must diversify if this is to
survive) will push it in the way the community wants to go. This
isn't a reference implementation.
geir
P.S. And note, the project is named 'tuSCAny', not 'tuSOAny' :)
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org