You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> on 2007/03/21 23:17:17 UTC
ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Hi,
We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
the list outlining how it went...
We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
(Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
My observations are:
- After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
- People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
- People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
- People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
- People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
- People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA
integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used
without SCA). Spring integration was also popular.
- People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not
a lot of extra "clutter".
- People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
Controller was cool.
- People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
number of talks on server-side OSGi.
My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Kevin Williams wrote:
> Jim and Meeraj,
> Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped?
> --Kevin
Thanks,
I don't think it was. I mentioned I will try to see if I can reprint
copies of the slides. BTW, I wanted to also say Meeraj and Jeremy
were the guys that need to get most of the credit with the effort
they put in getting the demo functional.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Kevin Williams <ke...@qwest.net>.
Jim and Meeraj,
Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped?
--Kevin
Jim Marino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
> the list outlining how it went...
>
> We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
> (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
> surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
> and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
> seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
> an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
> service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
>
> My observations are:
>
> - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
> value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
> programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
> excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
> remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
> this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
> what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
>
> - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
> positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
> to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
> seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
>
> - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
>
> - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
> for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
>
> - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
> heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
> alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
>
> - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
> was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
> locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA
> integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used
> without SCA). Spring integration was also popular.
>
> - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
> mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not
> a lot of extra "clutter".
>
> - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
> described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
> implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
> point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
> Controller was cool.
>
> - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
> standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
> any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
> application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
> number of talks on server-side OSGi.
>
> My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Jim.
Congratulations on the success!
The update is very useful for us to get the first-hand information.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Marino" <jm...@myromatours.com>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
> Hi,
>
> We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
> the list outlining how it went...
>
> We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
> (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
> surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
> and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
> seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
> an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
> service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
>
> My observations are:
>
> - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
> value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
> programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
> excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
> remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
> this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
> what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
>
> - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
> positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
> to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
> seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
>
> - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
>
> - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
> for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
>
> - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
> heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
> alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
>
> - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
> was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
> locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA
> integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used
> without SCA). Spring integration was also popular.
>
> - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
> mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not
> a lot of extra "clutter".
>
> - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
> described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
> implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
> point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
> Controller was cool.
>
> - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
> standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
> any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
> application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
> number of talks on server-side OSGi.
>
> My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful.
>
> - Venkat
>
> On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
> > the list outlining how it went...
> >
> > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
> > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
> > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
> > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
> > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
> > an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
> > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
> >
> > My observations are:
> >
> > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
> > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
> > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
> > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
> > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
> > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
> > what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
> >
> > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
> > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
> > to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
> > seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
> >
> > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
> >
> > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
> > for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
> >
> > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
> > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
> > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
> >
> > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
> > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
> > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA
> > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used
> > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular.
> >
> > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
> > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not
> > a lot of extra "clutter".
> >
> > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
> > described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
> > implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
> > point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
> > Controller was cool.
> >
> > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
> > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
> > any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
> > application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
> > number of talks on server-side OSGi.
> >
> > My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Jim,
Nice one. Thanks for the summary. Did the conference record the talk? Would
be good to see it. Noting your comment and recent mails about the last
minute changes to get JMS working in short order, is everything checked in
that's needed to run the demo? Looking back I see several notes on build
instructions and it would be pretty cool to give it a spin.
Can I ask a question about support for components written in different
languages? Did people specifically say they were interested in C++? Did they
mention other languages (and, if so, which ones)?
Presumably the sweet spot is the ability to show components implemented in
various languages all acting as part of a single SCA Domain. How big a deal
do you think this ability to be able to draw a "picture" of you
heterogeneous service network (in SCDL) vs some of the other things you
mention like "standalone edge server" or "selectable bindings". I'm asking
this question because, as you know, I like the idea and from your notes it
seems the audience likes the idea but I'm interested to know how much
interest there was for this vs other things.
I imagine, from reading your closing comments, you have a whole stack of
ideas now in your head about what needs doing next. This would seem like a
great opportunity for us all to look at what technical challenges lie ahead
and to have a discussion about how, as a community, we step up to meeting
some of them. How do we do this? Do we start some threads on individual
items? A thread on the grand plan and then split onto areas of peoples
interest. Having this summary is great because is really pushes on what we
really need to focus on, i.e. making something that is useful to our
(potential) users. We need to convert it into technical opportunities that
get the creative juices flowing.
Regards
Simon
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful.
- Venkat
On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
> the list outlining how it went...
>
> We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
> (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
> surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
> and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
> seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
> an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
> service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
>
> My observations are:
>
> - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
> value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
> programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
> excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
> remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
> this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
> what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
>
> - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
> positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
> to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
> seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
>
> - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
>
> - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
> for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
>
> - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
> heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
> alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
>
> - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
> was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
> locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA
> integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used
> without SCA). Spring integration was also popular.
>
> - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
> mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not
> a lot of extra "clutter".
>
> - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
> described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
> implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
> point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
> Controller was cool.
>
> - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
> standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
> any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
> application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
> number of talks on server-side OSGi.
>
> My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
> Jim,
>
> Congratulations and Thanks for a nice summary. Are you planning to
> record the presentation and demo? It would be nice to have it
> posted somewhere, maybe on theserverside.com?
>
Unfortunately, I don't think I can publish the slides on my own as it
is part of the Serverside conference. Hopefully, they will publish
them after the conference is over. I will also inquire if I can post
them to the web site but I imagine they won't want me to.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Jim Marino wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to
> the list outlining how it went...
>
> We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod
> (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was
> surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk
> and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction
> seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to
> an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery
> service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA.
>
> My observations are:
>
> - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the
> value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the
> programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got
> excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to
> remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In
> this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need
> what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway.
>
> - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted
> positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related
> to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just
> seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references.
>
> - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF
>
> - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support
> for components written in different languages, particularly C++.
>
> - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their
> heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select
> alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS.
>
> - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in
> was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not
> locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration.
> (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA).
> Spring integration was also popular.
>
> - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person
> mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a
> lot of extra "clutter".
>
> - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically
> described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component
> implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and
> point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the
> Controller was cool.
>
> - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a
> standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get
> any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE
> application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a
> number of talks on server-side OSGi.
>
> My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality.
>
> Jim
>
>
Jim,
Congratulations and Thanks for a nice summary. Are you planning to
record the presentation and demo? It would be nice to have it posted
somewhere, maybe on theserverside.com?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org