You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com> on 2009/04/22 19:07:39 UTC
Apache Wink Proposal
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.
Greg Truty
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com>.
You mean JAX-RS implementation. In that case, you can use either Apache
CXF or Apache Wink... Having multiple implementations will validate
pluggability too.
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:
"Raymond Feng" <en...@gmail.com>
To:
<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Date:
04/22/2009 01:04 PM
Subject:
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
We're adding JAX-RS support in Tuscany to provide the RESTful services in
SCA. The contributed prototype [1] is based on Jersey. Having an Apache
licensed JAX-WS implementation would be a good fit for us.
Thanks,
Raymond
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2919
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Greg Truty" <gt...@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:07 AM
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: "Nicholas L Gallardo" <nl...@us.ibm.com>; "Dustin Amrhein"
<da...@us.ibm.com>; "Bryant Luk" <bl...@us.ibm.com>; "Jesse A Ramos"
<jr...@us.ibm.com>; "Christopher J Blythe" <cj...@us.ibm.com>; "Baram,
Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>; <el...@hp.com>; <na...@hp.com>;
"Snitkovsky, Martin" <ma...@hp.com>;
<ta...@hp.com>; <to...@hp.com>; "Michael Rheinheimer"
<ro...@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Apache Wink Proposal
> 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.
>
> Greg Truty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
We're adding JAX-RS support in Tuscany to provide the RESTful services in
SCA. The contributed prototype [1] is based on Jersey. Having an Apache
licensed JAX-WS implementation would be a good fit for us.
Thanks,
Raymond
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2919
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Greg Truty" <gt...@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:07 AM
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc: "Nicholas L Gallardo" <nl...@us.ibm.com>; "Dustin Amrhein"
<da...@us.ibm.com>; "Bryant Luk" <bl...@us.ibm.com>; "Jesse A Ramos"
<jr...@us.ibm.com>; "Christopher J Blythe" <cj...@us.ibm.com>; "Baram,
Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>; <el...@hp.com>; <na...@hp.com>;
"Snitkovsky, Martin" <ma...@hp.com>;
<ta...@hp.com>; <to...@hp.com>; "Michael Rheinheimer"
<ro...@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Apache Wink Proposal
> 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.
>
> Greg Truty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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>.
Remaining IBM CLAs have been signed and faxed in. I've updated the wiki as
well.
-Nick
Nicholas Gallardo
WebSphere - REST & WebServices Development
nlgallar@us.ibm.com
Phone: 512-838-1182
Building: 901 / 5G-016
Davanum Srinivas
<davanum@gmail.co
m> To
general@incubator.apache.org
04/23/2009 06:28 cc
AM
Subject
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Please respond to
general@incubator
.apache.org
Niclas,
We will try the best to make the community dynamics happen. When we get
around to looking at the source, you will see
the existing cxf code packages and classes as-is. So theoretically we will
be able to get some value out of it in terms
of contributing back to cxf.
On a related note, would any pmc folks / asf members (including Dan!) like
to mentor us? or join us as committers?
Please let us know
thanks,
dims
On 04/23/2009 07:19 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Greg Truty<gt...@us.ibm.com> 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).
>
> I hear Dan's concerns, but *I* don't think they matter much. If this
> new community takes off, and turns out to get along well enough with
> the CXF community, wonders may happen. If they don't get along,
> forcing the merge won't work.
> And I am personally interested in seeing a light-weight (if anything
> is nowadays) API become available...
>
> So, +1 to submission of a formal proposal.
>
> Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Niclas,
We will try the best to make the community dynamics happen. When we get around to looking at the source, you will see
the existing cxf code packages and classes as-is. So theoretically we will be able to get some value out of it in terms
of contributing back to cxf.
On a related note, would any pmc folks / asf members (including Dan!) like to mentor us? or join us as committers?
Please let us know
thanks,
dims
On 04/23/2009 07:19 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Greg Truty<gt...@us.ibm.com> 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).
>
> I hear Dan's concerns, but *I* don't think they matter much. If this
> new community takes off, and turns out to get along well enough with
> the CXF community, wonders may happen. If they don't get along,
> forcing the merge won't work.
> And I am personally interested in seeing a light-weight (if anything
> is nowadays) API become available...
>
> So, +1 to submission of a formal proposal.
>
> Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com> 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).
I hear Dan's concerns, but *I* don't think they matter much. If this
new community takes off, and turns out to get along well enough with
the CXF community, wonders may happen. If they don't get along,
forcing the merge won't work.
And I am personally interested in seeing a light-weight (if anything
is nowadays) API become available...
So, +1 to submission of a formal proposal.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 "Baram, Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>.
Sounds like a good plan, that way we will be able to enjoy the good of both runtimes. The first phase would deal with selecting/merging the runtime, stable it under the new environment and make sure that the JAX-RS functionality is covered and work.
The second phase can deal with the stable/adding the additional functionality over the plain JAX-RS, after finishing this part other projects would be able to enjoy the added value of the Wink runtime.
Of course each phase should be delivered with the related documentation and examples.
Looking forward to start the process,
Eli
From: Nicholas L Gallardo [mailto:nlgallar@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:53 PM
To: Baram, Eliezer
Cc: Bryant Luk; Christopher J Blythe; Daniel Kulp; Dustin Amrhein; 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
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
[cid:image001.gif@01C9C799.87E4EAE0]"Baram, Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>
"Baram, Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>
04/26/2009 01:14 AM
To
Nicholas L 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
[cid:image001.gif@01C9C799.87E4EAE0]Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
04/22/2009 03:25 PM
To
general@incubator.apache.org
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 Nicholas L Gallardo <nl...@us.ibm.com>.
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 "Baram, Eliezer" <eb...@hp.com>.
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
[cid:image001.gif@01C9C64F.641A96F0]Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
04/22/2009 03:25 PM
To
general@incubator.apache.org
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 Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Dan,
- So we have basically 3 parties at the table with their own code.
- Yes, we would love to get CXF folks involved, it was a mistake not
to have done that earlier.
- Obviously we are not going to move all the discussion over to cxf
and drop the proposal as there is code from HP as well.
So my feeling is lets get this thing going and get everyone to look at
each others work and see where we can go from there.
Hopefully we will get good participation from cxf folks enough for
everyone to make up their minds that cxf should be the destination for
all the code. If not, let's leave what we end up with here as another
TLP.
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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>.
> 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
Daniel Kulp
<dkulp@apache.org
> To
general@incubator.apache.org
04/22/2009 03:25 cc
PM 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 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com>.
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 Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com>.
Thanks Sanjiva - you are correct that the original IBM intent was a clean
JAX-RS runtime. There's not that much code in the JAX-RS APIs demanding
much more else than that. With HP - as stated - it's been developed over
a number of years. I want to make sure folks realize that the convergence
will happen in the open (which is what we all want - isn't it)?
btw.. Servlets offer full REST support. The rest is a small matter of a
little code :-)
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:
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>
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 03:00 PM
Subject:
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation. You looked at Apache
CXF
Just to make matters more muddy .. Axis2 has full REST support and there's
some work that was started to support JAX-RS but never completed (not
exactly major user demand there). However, that will happen at some point
.. we just have to complete the annotations, the runtime is essentially
available already.
More the merrier, eh?
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.
I guess history repeats itself ;-).
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.
>From my read of the proposal, the idea is to have a clean JAX-RS *only*
runtime. I can imagine that would be a tad less complex than CXF or Axis2
is given that those are designed for a more general problem and treat REST
support as one style of services only.
To that extent, I don't see a problem with a separate standalone
implementation.
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation;
http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation. You looked at Apache
> CXF
Just to make matters more muddy .. Axis2 has full REST support and there's
some work that was started to support JAX-RS but never completed (not
exactly major user demand there). However, that will happen at some point ..
we just have to complete the annotations, the runtime is essentially
available already.
More the merrier, eh?
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.
I guess history repeats itself ;-).
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.
>From my read of the proposal, the idea is to have a clean JAX-RS *only*
runtime. I can imagine that would be a tad less complex than CXF or Axis2 is
given that those are designed for a more general problem and treat REST
support as one style of services only.
To that extent, I don't see a problem with a separate standalone
implementation.
Sanjiva.
--
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Director & Chief Scientist; Lanka Software Foundation;
http://www.opensource.lk/
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/
Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Dan,
I do think that "graduating" via a merger with the CXF implementation
and engagements with that community is a good goal to have. I believe
we call that out explicitly since we tell all projects that when the
time is ripe we can figure out where the project is gonna live. So +1
for that option.
I am looking at this from the point of view of...We are here now, what
can we do next? Would everyone like to take a look at the sources
next?
thanks,
dims
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Greg Truty <gt...@us.ibm.com>.
Fixed - thanks...
The other IBM "No's" are scheduled to get CLAs.
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:
"Peltz, Christopher" <ch...@hp.com>
To:
Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "general@incubator.apache.org"
<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Cc:
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,
Michael" <el...@hp.com>, "Fischer, Nadav" <na...@hp.com>,
"Snitkovsky, Martin" <ma...@hp.com>, "Alsaigh Cohen, Tali"
<ta...@hp.com>, "Shadi, Tomer" <to...@hp.com>, Michael
Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date:
04/22/2009 01:02 PM
Subject:
RE: Apache Wink Proposal
Greg - one correction - HP did sign an Apache CLA, so it should say "Yes",
next to all HP initial committers.
________________________________
From: Greg Truty [gtruty@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:07 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Nicholas L Gallardo; Dustin Amrhein; Bryant Luk; Jesse A Ramos;
Christopher J Blythe; Baram, Eliezer; Elman, Michael; Fischer, Nadav;
Snitkovsky, Martin; Alsaigh Cohen, Tali; Shadi, Tomer; Michael Rheinheimer
Subject: Apache Wink Proposal
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.
Greg Truty
Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 23/04/2009, at 3:59 AM, Peltz, Christopher wrote:
> Greg - one correction - HP did sign an Apache CLA, so it should say
> "Yes", next to all HP initial committers.
That's not correct - each still requires an individual CLA if they are
going to participate in the project. I think you are thinking of a
CCLA which is additional.
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 "Peltz, Christopher" <ch...@hp.com>.
Greg - one correction - HP did sign an Apache CLA, so it should say "Yes", next to all HP initial committers.
________________________________
From: Greg Truty [gtruty@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:07 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Nicholas L Gallardo; Dustin Amrhein; Bryant Luk; Jesse A Ramos; Christopher J Blythe; Baram, Eliezer; Elman, Michael; Fischer, Nadav; Snitkovsky, Martin; Alsaigh Cohen, Tali; Shadi, Tomer; Michael Rheinheimer
Subject: Apache Wink Proposal
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.
Greg Truty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org