You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com> on 2009/05/06 17:40:17 UTC
RE: Apache Wink Proposal
All,
Given that the discussion has quieted down after an initial flurry, I was
hoping we could move this forward.
If there are no further comments/concerns, could we call for a vote on
whether or not to accept the proposal by Friday? With a few folks
expressing interest for their projects, we'd like to get going on this to
try and get an early version out this summer.
On a side note, I've shared our changes with the CXF community in a JIRA
here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2204
Best,
-Nick
Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development
nlgallar@us.ibm.com
Phone: 512-286-6258
Building: 903 / 5G-016
Nicholas L
Gallardo/Austin/I
BM To
"Baram, Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>
04/27/2009 08:53 cc
AM Bryant Luk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Christopher J
Blythe/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Daniel
Kulp <dk...@apache.org>, Dustin
Amrhein/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Elman,
Michael" <el...@hp.com>,
"general@incubator.apache.org"
<ge...@incubator.apache.org>,
Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Jesse
A Ramos/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Snitkovsky, Martin"
<ma...@hp.com>, Michael
Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Fischer, Nadav"
<na...@hp.com>, "Alsaigh
Cohen, Tali"
<ta...@hp.com>,
"Shadi, Tomer" <to...@hp.com>
Subject
RE: Apache Wink Proposal(Document
link: Nicholas L Gallardo)
Thanks Eli...
We've had some preliminary discussions about the design of each engine, but
I'll be interested to see how similar the approaches are once we're able to
get the code out.
While we wait for feedback, here's a pass at what some of the short term
objectives/priorities of the project would be. Comments are encouraged...
- We would drop both code bases to separate sections of the repository so
each can be built and have their test buckets run.
- After some initial comparisons/evaluations we could start building up a
common runtime based on the parts of each that we think are best. The key
is to get a lightweight runtime up that supports basic targeting,
databinding and resource invocation. It will be tricky trying to smash two
runtimes together, so I *could* ultimately see one or the other winning out
based on how much we're pulling and just adapt from there. I'm not wed to
any one design so long as it's light weight, flexible and pluggable.
- Once the initial runtime is together, we can start pulling JAX-RS tests
from both test buckets and start driving scenarios through and building out
the JAX-RS functionality.
That would be enough for a 0.1 to get things started and to see how we
would fit in to some of the other projects that would be looking to consume
the Wink runtime.
Thoughts?
-Nick
Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere - WebServices Development
nlgallar@us.ibm.com
Phone: 512-286-6258
Building: 901 / 5G-016
"Baram, Eliezer"
<eb...@hp.com>
To
04/26/2009 01:14 Nicholas L
AM Gallardo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Daniel
Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
cc
Bryant Luk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Christopher J
Blythe/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Dustin
Amrhein/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Elman,
Michael" <el...@hp.com>,
"general@incubator.apache.org"
<ge...@incubator.apache.org>,
Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Jesse
A Ramos/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Snitkovsky, Martin"
<ma...@hp.com>, Michael
Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
"Fischer, Nadav"
<na...@hp.com>, "Alsaigh
Cohen, Tali"
<ta...@hp.com>,
"Shadi, Tomer" <to...@hp.com>
Subject
RE: Apache Wink Proposal
Hi
HP started developing the REST SDK about 2.5 yeas ago, at that time there
was no suitable REST framework that provided the capabilities we were
looking for.
When decided to join forces with IBM and go open source, the SDK already
existed, so the question was where shell we publish it, rewriting it over
other SDK does not seemed justified.
Looking forward we see the Wink project as something wider than JAX-RS
implementation as it addresses also other REST development issues that are
not covered by the JAX-RS specification.
Regards,
Eli
From: Nicholas L Gallardo [mailto:nlgallar@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:07 AM
To: Daniel Kulp
Cc: Bryant Luk; Christopher J Blythe; Dustin Amrhein; Baram, Eliezer;
Elman, Michael; general@incubator.apache.org; Greg Truty; Jesse A Ramos;
Snitkovsky, Martin; Michael Rheinheimer; Fischer, Nadav; Alsaigh Cohen,
Tali; Shadi, Tomer
Subject: Re: Apache Wink Proposal
> If you would have asked the CXF community, we would have been happy to
tell
> you that the JAX-RS implementation has NO DEPENDENCIES on the JAX-WS
> implementation. There is a CXF "core" with various personalities
layered on
> top. JAX-WS is one personality. JAX-RS is another. (there are
others
> like the simple frontend, some javascript thingies, etc...)
Given Greg's earlier comments, I am assuming he was referring to pulling
out the broader web services related code as opposed to just JAX-WS. That
separation is clear via CXF's frontend plugin mechanism.
Beyond that, we didn't fork the CXF code with the intent of creating a new
Apache project. Moving to Apache was only decided after the decision was
made between HP and IBM to work together. For IBM's purposes, we looked at
CXF and felt that the work to tease apart the JAX-RS pieces from the rest
of the core was about the same as redoing a minimal piece of that core
work. Specifically, doing nothing more than pulling a request in off of a
servlet and feeding it to the JAX-RS utils. Maybe our assessment was
wrong, but we can't change that now.
Personally, I think that JAX-RS is just a means to an end. A number of
projects outside of Apache provide this support today. If that was the end
goal, I agree there wouldn't be a need for the project. Ultimately, I see
this as an opportunity to focus on the broader spectrum of issues
surrounding Java REST service development. JAX-RS is an important piece,
but the project would be more valuable than just that.
-Nick
Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development
nlgallar@us.ibm.com
Phone: 512-838-1182
Building: 901 / 5G-016
Inactive hide details for Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>Daniel Kulp
<dk...@apache.org>
Daniel
Kulp
<dkulp@apa
che.org>
To
04/22/2009 general@incubator.apache.org
03:25 PM
cc
Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Bryant
Luk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher J
Blythe/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Dustin
Amrhein/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Baram, Eliezer"
<eb...@hp.com>, elman@hp.com, Jesse A
Ramos/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Snitkovsky, Martin"
<ma...@hp.com>, Michael
Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
nadav.fischer@hp.com, Nicholas L
Gallardo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
tali.alsaigh-cohen@hp.com, tomer.shadi@hp.com
Subject
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
> Apache CXF is both a JAX-WS and JAX-RS
> implementation. In IBM, our JAX-WS implementation is based on Apache
> Axis2. Therefore, it was prohibitive to pull in CXF as part of our
> runtime. IBM wanted/needed something smaller - it's as simple as that.
.......
> My question back to you is, do you think we can pull out the JAX-WS
> capabilities from CXF?
If you would have asked the CXF community, we would have been happy to tell
you that the JAX-RS implementation has NO DEPENDENCIES on the JAX-WS
implementation. There is a CXF "core" with various personalities layered
on
top. JAX-WS is one personality. JAX-RS is another. (there are others
like the simple frontend, some javascript thingies, etc...)
Thus, the answer is "yes", we can pull out the JAX-WS stuff as there are no
JAX-WS deps. As examples:
1) The Distributed OSGi subproject in CXF uses the bundle that does not
include any JAX-WS things. Only the soap stuff and the simple frontend.
2) We DO provide a JAX-RS only "bundle": (maven only, not really in the
kits)
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/cxf/cxf-bundle-jaxrs/2.2/
that was a starting point for providing stripped down runtime. It doesn't
include the jaxws stuff, the simple frontend, etc... It's currently
probably
larger than you want as it does provide support for Aegis databinding as a
JAX-RS Provider. (Although for some reason, the soap code is in there, I
believe that's a mistake. Need to log a bug....)
In anycase, CXF DOES have a history of providing stripped down bundles.
However, it's also very modular. If you just want the JAX-RS
implementation
from maven, just depend on cxf-rt-frontend-jaxrs. That will pull in the
stuff it needs and not the jax-ws, ws-* stuff, etc....
Again, engaging with the CXF community would have given you that
information.
Dan
On Wed April 22 2009 3:59:01 pm Greg Truty wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Let me address both your comments, and then your questions.
>
> - Both IBM and HP EACH have an implementation of a REST runtime. We are
> bringing both. Speaking for the IBM portion, yes - we have something
> which is already compliant. Apache CXF is both a JAX-WS and JAX-RS
> implementation. In IBM, our JAX-WS implementation is based on Apache
> Axis2. Therefore, it was prohibitive to pull in CXF as part of our
> runtime. IBM wanted/needed something smaller - it's as simple as that.
> Perhaps the answers to your questions may help me position some of this
in
> a better light...
>
> 1)
> a) IBMs implementation is JAX-RS 1.0 compliant. With the fact that there
> is now a 1.1 spec - so that's something that needs to be looked at.
> b) one of the things that I see that are missing are more in depth
> examples for how to use JAX-RS in a RESTful fashion. Getting these
> written up can benefit BOTH projects
> c) Some of the message body readers/writers (to handle other mime types
> and programming models) can be shared among both projects. They should
be
> portable
> d) There is no client programming model in JAX-RS. This is something
> which I think is needed as REST services get pushed deeper into the
> enterprise (and away from the presentation tier). These will help feed
> back changes for a later update to JAX-RS. Look at Jersey, RESTlet,
> RESTeasy, CXF (they all offer a client API).
>
> This may be a naive assumption, but I do think there are opportunities to
> share capabilities amongst the 2 projects - even letting them pull code
> back and forth.
>
> HP was also working on JAX-RS compliance for their implementation (so -
> again), it would be a melding of the various runtimes (in a lighter
> fashion).
>
> 2) 1b, c, d) are examples which we should be able to agree - or get very
> very close on. Whether we can get to a single implementation (I don't
> know). If we can figure out how to tease them apart into pieces -
> perhaps. I haven't, myself, seen the HP code (but our IBM participants
> are willing to do whatever it takes to try and quickly come to a joint
> resolution between the 2 runtimes).
>
> Getting the various teams together at an ApacheCon is a great idea (but
> given the current economic times), I don't know how much it's immediately
> practical. I'm think the first step is to at least get things on the
> table (i.e. code contributed, discussions formulated, to see how
> close/apart we really are) - and go from there.
>
> My question back to you is, do you think we can pull out the JAX-WS
> capabilities from CXF?
>
> Regards... Greg
>
> Greg Truty
> WebSphere Web Services and REST Architect, IBM Austin
> EMail: gtruty@us.ibm.com
> Phone: (ext) (512) 286-8985
> (Tie) 363-8985
>
>
>
> From:
> Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
> To:
> general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Nicholas L Gallardo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Dustin
> Amrhein/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Bryant Luk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Jesse A
> Ramos/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher J Blythe/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Baram,
> Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>, elman@hp.com, nadav.fischer@hp.com,
"Snitkovsky,
> Martin" <ma...@hp.com>, tali.alsaigh-cohen@hp.com,
> tomer.shadi@hp.com, Michael Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Date:
> 04/22/2009 02:15 PM
> Subject:
> Re: Apache Wink Proposal
>
> On Wed April 22 2009 1:07:39 pm Greg Truty wrote:
> > Hello all, I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for
> > Apache Wink, stand-alone REST toolkit supporting JAX-RS (JSR 311), a
> > client runtime and test cases (as well as other items). The full
>
> proposal
>
> > can be found on the wiki at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WinkProposal
>
> > . We are looking forward to all questions and feedback, positive or
> > negative. In addition, we welcome all participants and mentors to help
> > support the effort.
>
> I know you are expecting a response from me (I've talked to Dims about
> this
> already) so I might as well get it out of the way.... :-)
>
> So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation. You looked at Apache
> CXF
> but it didn't completely meet your needs. Instead of engaging with CXF
> (there wasn't any discussion about any of this on the CXF dev/users list)
> to
> enhance CXF, you fork it in house and update it and enhance it outside of
> any
> community. Now you want to push it back into Apache, but not with any
of
> the
> CXF community. I just wanted to get that out in the open. Two
> implementations isn't a bad thing (think Axis2 and CXF) but the way this
> was
> approached is a concern.
>
> Next come the hard questions:
> 1) The proposal mentions it's already JAX-RS TCK compliant. From a
> JAX-RS
> standpoint, were do you see the community "growing"? I've seen several
> projects that come in with their stated goals already "complete" and have
> a
> tough time getting new committers.
>
> 2) What "advantages" would it have over CXF's implementation and/or
> Jersey?
> (apart from the TCK compliance which CXF is working on now that we got
the
>
> TCK) Since Wink would be Apache licensed, I'd expect anything "cool"
> would be
> pulled into CXF anyway if possible. One advantage of multiple Apache
> licensed implementations is that great ideas can also be pulled back and
> forth. :-) Obviously, I haven't seen the Wink code so I don't
> know
> how easy/hard that would be.
>
> One "question" I have when I see projects with duplicate goals is to see
> if
> the differences could be resolved to a point where only one project is
> needed.
> I remember with CXF and Axis 2 sitting down in a room at some conference
> several years ago (ApacheCon Austin maybe? Don't really remember.) with
> Dan
> Diephouse, myself, Glen Daniels, Sanjiva and several others involved with
> both
> projects to try and resolve any issues and possibly merge things. In
> that
> meeting, we really did conclude we had strong differences in opinions on
> designs, priorities, and ideas and it really wasn't possible. That is
> quite
> OK. At least the discussion occurred. I haven't seen discussions
> like
> that with CXF/Wink.
>
>
> I guess from my standpoint, while I'm not "against" the proposal, I'd
> definitely like to see it have the option of "graduating" via a merger
> with
> the CXF implementation and engagements with that community.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 14:56 -0500, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
> Thanks Kevan, do I need to call for that formally myself or does it
> need to come from an Incubator PMC member?
If you have sufficient mentors on your proposal, then anyone can do it.
Just be sure to embed the proposal into the vote email, don't just post
a link.
Regards, Upayavira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com>.
Thanks Kevan, do I need to call for that formally myself or does it need to
come from an Incubator PMC member?
-Nick
Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development
nlgallar@us.ibm.com
Phone: 512-286-6258
Building: 903 / 5G-016
Kevan Miller
<kevan.miller@gma
il.com> To
general@incubator.apache.org
05/12/2009 02:53 cc
PM
Subject
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Please respond to
general@incubator
.apache.org
On May 6, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
> All,
>
> Given that the discussion has quieted down after an initial flurry,
> I was hoping we could move this forward.
>
> If there are no further comments/concerns, could we call for a vote
> on whether or not to accept the proposal by Friday? With a few folks
> expressing interest for their projects, we'd like to get going on
> this to try and get an early version out this summer.
>
I'd certainly agree that it's time for a vote.
>
> On a side note, I've shared our changes with the CXF community in a
> JIRA here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2204
>
Great.
--kevan
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 6, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Nicholas L Gallardo wrote:
> All,
>
> Given that the discussion has quieted down after an initial flurry,
> I was hoping we could move this forward.
>
> If there are no further comments/concerns, could we call for a vote
> on whether or not to accept the proposal by Friday? With a few folks
> expressing interest for their projects, we'd like to get going on
> this to try and get an early version out this summer.
>
I'd certainly agree that it's time for a vote.
>
> On a side note, I've shared our changes with the CXF community in a
> JIRA here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-2204
>
Great.
--kevan