You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2009/01/22 21:56:35 UTC
Imperius Community Status
Despite a few minor promises (e.g. the release discussion which seems
to have died out...), I'm seeing very little in the way of progress
within the Imperius community.
I'm starting to consider if the Imperius podling should be retired.
This isn't a statement about the technology nor about the individuals
that are involved. Simply that we don't have the necessary energy
needed to keep the community moving forward.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong and I'm certainly not proposing any
immediate action -- merely raising my concerns.
What are your thoughts?
--kevan
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
Certainly we haven't changed the policy (SPL) syntax, although we have
added a header that appears in SPL comments. The header (in JSON) format
provides metadata about the policy (name, description, name/value pairs,
type, etc), This metadata, along with import information, is used to
match a PEP's evaluation request with applicable policies. We've recently
done some performance analysis also, and it shows we can get about 12K
policies/sec (memory repository) and 4K policies/sec (JDBC).
Yes, I'd be interested to hear what others thinks too. Look forward to
hearing from you.
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 11:24 AM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
Hi David,
This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
like the policy syntax
is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
experience of using Imperius
and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model ?
In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 09:41 AM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 08:59 AM
Subject:
Additional function for contribution
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
[attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by "Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>.
OK. How about we do the freeze, tag it, then add David's
code, then do a release?
-- mark
Neeraj Joshi wrote:
> If we decide to add the new code under a separate node in the tree there
> shouldn't be any issues. If we were to merge / overwrite parts of Imperius
> then I could see some additionally testing to be done.
> IMHO we should go with checking this new function in a separate branch and
> then work towards merging them into 1 single entity. In the meantime we
> can freeze the existing branches
> for use by Mark's team. I am not sure whether a release would be feasible
> in this time frame.
>
> It seems to me that post merging with the new code from David would be a
> good time to propose a release.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
>
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/29/2009 12:40 PM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> It does nothing to the compatibility with CIM-SPL. The closest thing to
> any issue raised, might be the extended comment format that we use as a
> header before each policy. These are standard SPL comments, but we embed
>
> metadata (name, type, attributes, etc) in these comments and then use this
>
> metadata for additional function. Here's an example (albeit a silly one),
>
> //// {
> //// "name" : "Policy A1",
> //// "type" : "AUTHORIZATION",
> //// "attributes" : {
> //// "class" : "network adapter",
> //// "expected-result" : "false"
> //// }
> //// }
> Import Class java.lang.Integer:acl_integer;
> Strategy Execute_All_Applicable;
> Policy
> {
> Condition
> {
> acl_integer.intValue() == 5
> }
> Decision
> {
> acl_integer.intValue()
> }
> }:1;
>
>
> As far as when this would be added, that's up to the community. If we'd
> prefer to wait until after the release that is fine by me. Also, although
>
> the code is pretty well junit tested and javadoc'd, I'm not sure we'd be
> able to commit to a Feb 6 deadline.
>
> David Wood
> Policy Technologies Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> "Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/29/2009 12:28 PM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
> with CIM-SPL?
>
> Also, when are you planning to add it?
>
> Should we do a release first, and then add this?
>
> I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
> something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
> a week from Friday?
>
> If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.
>
> -- mark
>
> David Wood wrote:
>
>> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
>> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius.
>>
> What
>
>> do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
>>
>
>
>
>> you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
>>
>
>
>
>> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this
>>
> project).
>
>> Hope to hear from you soon.
>>
>> David Wood
>> Network Server System Software Group
>> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
>> dawood@us.ibm.com
>> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
>> To:
>> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date:
>> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: Additional function for contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
>> like the policy syntax
>> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>>
>> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
>> experience of using Imperius
>> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model
>>
> ?
>
>> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Neeraj
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>>
>>
>> Neeraj Joshi
>> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
>> AIM, IBM
>> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>> To:
>> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date:
>> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: Additional function for contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
>>
>>
>>
>> David Wood
>> Network Server System Software Group
>> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
>> dawood@us.ibm.com
>> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>>
>>
>>
>> From:
>> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>> To:
>> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Date:
>> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM
>> Subject:
>> Additional function for contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
>> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality
>>
> on
>
>> top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential
>>
> and
>
>> describes our work...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> David Wood
>> Network Server System Software Group
>> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
>> dawood@us.ibm.com
>> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
<http://www.sun.com> * Mark A. Carlson *
Sr. Architect
*Systems Group*
Phone x69559 / 303-223-6139
Email Mark.Carlson@Sun.COM
Re: [PleaseVote] Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
I agree that a post-release merge would be best, although I would
recommend another release when we get the new code merged in. Also, I
will need to do some code cleanups, which may take a week or two, before
submitting.
David Wood
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/30/2009 04:36 PM
Subject:
[PleaseVote] Re: Additional function for contribution
If we decide to add the new code under a separate node in the tree there
shouldn't be any issues. If we were to merge / overwrite parts of Imperius
then I could see some additionally testing to be done.
IMHO we should go with checking this new function in a separate branch and
then work towards merging them into 1 single entity. In the meantime we
can freeze the existing branches
for use by Mark's team. I am not sure whether a release would be feasible
in this time frame.
It seems to me that post merging with the new code from David would be a
good time to propose a release.
What do you folks think?
Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:40 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
It does nothing to the compatibility with CIM-SPL. The closest thing to
any issue raised, might be the extended comment format that we use as a
header before each policy. These are standard SPL comments, but we embed
metadata (name, type, attributes, etc) in these comments and then use this
metadata for additional function. Here's an example (albeit a silly one),
//// {
//// "name" : "Policy A1",
//// "type" : "AUTHORIZATION",
//// "attributes" : {
//// "class" : "network adapter",
//// "expected-result" : "false"
//// }
//// }
Import Class java.lang.Integer:acl_integer;
Strategy Execute_All_Applicable;
Policy
{
Condition
{
acl_integer.intValue() == 5
}
Decision
{
acl_integer.intValue()
}
}:1;
As far as when this would be added, that's up to the community. If we'd
prefer to wait until after the release that is fine by me. Also, although
the code is pretty well junit tested and javadoc'd, I'm not sure we'd be
able to commit to a Feb 6 deadline.
David Wood
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
"Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:28 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
with CIM-SPL?
Also, when are you planning to add it?
Should we do a release first, and then add this?
I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
a week from Friday?
If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.
-- mark
David Wood wrote:
> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius.
What
> do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
> you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this
project).
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
> like the policy syntax
> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>
> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
> experience of using Imperius
> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model
?
>
> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
>
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM
> Subject:
> Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality
on
>
> top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential
and
> describes our work...
>
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by Neeraj Joshi <jn...@us.ibm.com>.
If we decide to add the new code under a separate node in the tree there
shouldn't be any issues. If we were to merge / overwrite parts of Imperius
then I could see some additionally testing to be done.
IMHO we should go with checking this new function in a separate branch and
then work towards merging them into 1 single entity. In the meantime we
can freeze the existing branches
for use by Mark's team. I am not sure whether a release would be feasible
in this time frame.
It seems to me that post merging with the new code from David would be a
good time to propose a release.
What do you folks think?
Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:40 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
It does nothing to the compatibility with CIM-SPL. The closest thing to
any issue raised, might be the extended comment format that we use as a
header before each policy. These are standard SPL comments, but we embed
metadata (name, type, attributes, etc) in these comments and then use this
metadata for additional function. Here's an example (albeit a silly one),
//// {
//// "name" : "Policy A1",
//// "type" : "AUTHORIZATION",
//// "attributes" : {
//// "class" : "network adapter",
//// "expected-result" : "false"
//// }
//// }
Import Class java.lang.Integer:acl_integer;
Strategy Execute_All_Applicable;
Policy
{
Condition
{
acl_integer.intValue() == 5
}
Decision
{
acl_integer.intValue()
}
}:1;
As far as when this would be added, that's up to the community. If we'd
prefer to wait until after the release that is fine by me. Also, although
the code is pretty well junit tested and javadoc'd, I'm not sure we'd be
able to commit to a Feb 6 deadline.
David Wood
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
"Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:28 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
with CIM-SPL?
Also, when are you planning to add it?
Should we do a release first, and then add this?
I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
a week from Friday?
If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.
-- mark
David Wood wrote:
> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius.
What
> do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
> you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this
project).
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
> like the policy syntax
> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>
> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
> experience of using Imperius
> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model
?
>
> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
>
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM
> Subject:
> Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality
on
>
> top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential
and
> describes our work...
>
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
It does nothing to the compatibility with CIM-SPL. The closest thing to
any issue raised, might be the extended comment format that we use as a
header before each policy. These are standard SPL comments, but we embed
metadata (name, type, attributes, etc) in these comments and then use this
metadata for additional function. Here's an example (albeit a silly one),
//// {
//// "name" : "Policy A1",
//// "type" : "AUTHORIZATION",
//// "attributes" : {
//// "class" : "network adapter",
//// "expected-result" : "false"
//// }
//// }
Import Class java.lang.Integer:acl_integer;
Strategy Execute_All_Applicable;
Policy
{
Condition
{
acl_integer.intValue() == 5
}
Decision
{
acl_integer.intValue()
}
}:1;
As far as when this would be added, that's up to the community. If we'd
prefer to wait until after the release that is fine by me. Also, although
the code is pretty well junit tested and javadoc'd, I'm not sure we'd be
able to commit to a Feb 6 deadline.
David Wood
Policy Technologies Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
"Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/29/2009 12:28 PM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
with CIM-SPL?
Also, when are you planning to add it?
Should we do a release first, and then add this?
I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
a week from Friday?
If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.
-- mark
David Wood wrote:
> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius.
What
> do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
> you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this
project).
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
> like the policy syntax
> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>
> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
> experience of using Imperius
> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model
?
>
> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
>
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM
> Subject:
> Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality
on
>
> top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential
and
> describes our work...
>
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by "Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>.
I think this is interesting work. Would it affect the compatibility
with CIM-SPL?
Also, when are you planning to add it?
Should we do a release first, and then add this?
I'd like to set a date for a "code freeze" in order to have
something stable to release. Would anyone need more time than
a week from Friday?
If not, I would propose a code freeze date of February 6th.
-- mark
David Wood wrote:
> And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
> interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius. What
> do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
> you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
> get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this project).
> Hope to hear from you soon.
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 11:24 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
> Hi David,
> This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
> like the policy syntax
> is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
>
> I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
> experience of using Imperius
> and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model ?
>
> In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
>
> Thanks
> Neeraj
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
>
>
> Neeraj Joshi
> WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
> AIM, IBM
> Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 09:41 AM
> Subject:
> Re: Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
>
>
>
> From:
> David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Date:
> 01/23/2009 08:59 AM
> Subject:
> Additional function for contribution
>
>
>
>
>
> Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
> repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
>
> top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
> describes our work...
>
>
>
>
> David Wood
> Network Server System Software Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> dawood@us.ibm.com
> 914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
> [attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
And also, I may not have been clear, but just to be sure, we would be
interested CONTRIBUTE this additional layer of function to Imperius. What
do people think? If more information is needed, please let me know what
you'd like to see and how we can get this discussion going (if we don't
get a discussion going, I'm not sure it bodes too well for this project).
Hope to hear from you soon.
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 11:24 AM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
Hi David,
This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
like the policy syntax
is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
experience of using Imperius
and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model ?
In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 09:41 AM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 08:59 AM
Subject:
Additional function for contribution
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
[attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by Neeraj Joshi <jn...@us.ibm.com>.
Hi David,
This looks good to me! I like the concept of having PEP and PDP. Looks
like the policy syntax
is unchanged here only the usage has changed.
I would be interested in what Reza and Mark have to say based on their
experience of using Imperius
and how much of an effort it would be for them to move to the new model ?
In any case I think this would be a great addition to Imperius.
Thanks
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 09:41 AM
Subject:
Re: Additional function for contribution
Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 08:59 AM
Subject:
Additional function for contribution
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
[attachment "WPML-Dev-Guide.zip" deleted by Neeraj Joshi/Durham/IBM]
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
Ok, I'll try sending it as a zip file...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 08:59 AM
Subject:
Additional function for contribution
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
Re: Additional function for contribution
Posted by Neeraj Joshi <jn...@us.ibm.com>.
Hey David,
I don't see any attachment?
Neeraj
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The light at the end of the tunnel...may be you"
Neeraj Joshi
WebSphere XD - Compute Grid
AIM, IBM
Apache Imperius - http://incubator.apache.org/imperius
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
David Wood/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
To:
imperius-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date:
01/23/2009 08:56 AM
Subject:
Additional function for contribution
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
Additional function for contribution
Posted by David Wood <da...@us.ibm.com>.
Given the recent "activity" discussion, perhaps now is the time to
repropose some work we've done at IBM to layer additional functionality on
top of what is already in Imperius. The attached is non-confidential and
describes our work...
David Wood
Network Server System Software Group
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
dawood@us.ibm.com
914-784-5123 (office), 914-396-6515 (mobile)
Re: Imperius Community Status
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 22, 2009, at 11:59 PM, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> Like I said during the release discussion, we are actively
> porting this to OpenSolaris and will be putting back changes
> that are required for that port. Email traffic is not a reliable
> indicator of "activity" IMHO.
Heh. Good that we're having this discussion. At Apache, email traffic
is practically the *only* sign of *community* activity. There may be
*activity*, here, but it's your own private activity, not the
community's.
I'd want to see discussions of changes that are being made, discussion
of future directions for the project, true progress on creating a
release, and consistent communications among community members. All of
these need to be on the Imperius mailing lists.
Until I see signs of the above, I have serious doubts about the
potential for this community to ever graduate from the Incubator.
I'm communicating my concerns in the hope that they will be addressed.
There's time to address these concerns... As always, would be
interested to hear from other mentors and committers...
--kevan
Re: Imperius Community Status
Posted by "Mark A. Carlson" <Ma...@Sun.COM>.
Like I said during the release discussion, we are actively
porting this to OpenSolaris and will be putting back changes
that are required for that port. Email traffic is not a reliable
indicator of "activity" IMHO.
-- mark
Kevan Miller wrote:
> Despite a few minor promises (e.g. the release discussion which seems
> to have died out...), I'm seeing very little in the way of progress
> within the Imperius community.
>
> I'm starting to consider if the Imperius podling should be retired.
> This isn't a statement about the technology nor about the individuals
> that are involved. Simply that we don't have the necessary energy
> needed to keep the community moving forward.
>
> I'd be happy to be proven wrong and I'm certainly not proposing any
> immediate action -- merely raising my concerns.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> --kevan