You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@servicemix.apache.org by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> on 2006/02/02 20:12:12 UTC
Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
On 2 Feb 2006, at 18:36, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a
> clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like.
We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
> *PLEASE* CC
> general@incubator.
Will do.
> - Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
> - Where are the list of known issues?
> - Where is the TODO list?
We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
to accept it. We are still in incubation
> - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we
> forget that the current version is Axis 1.3)
I don't see the version of a jar as influencing whether or not we
accept a contribution.
> - Is there any relation to workflow?
Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
within its scope.
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
> - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
> project Agila?
We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
community decide those things down the road.
> - Are there people from sybase who will be working?
Yes
> - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to
> be one too?
Not at all - this is just some code being donated to the ServiceMix
project. No umbrella.
> - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
the test cases for example
> - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code
> inside out?
We've looked pretty closely at it and really like it.
> - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole
> then why should it be accepted?
As I already said in reply to Ken; there are quire a few commiters
simply itching to work on the code and some contributors from Sybase
too.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
With my Geronimo PMC member hat on. i've already cast my VOTE
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=113889773909505&w=2).
Now that i have your attention :) and i have a bit more information
that i did not have before, but i still think a standalone BPEL
vibrant project is a necessary addition to our aresenal and things
should not get buried under layers of projects and become a check mark
on a marketing wish list for someone.
So reiterating, I would like the donors to work with incubator
directly, write a complete proposal with pros and cons, show up with
people who will continue working on the project including the existing
servicemix community and others who may wish to join and follow the
incubator process for setting up a new project given the stand alone
nature of the code and its supposed completeness.
thanks,
dims
On 2/2/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2006, at 18:36, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a
> > clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like.
>
> We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
> PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
> the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
> proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
>
>
> > *PLEASE* CC
> > general@incubator.
>
> Will do.
>
>
> > - Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
> > - Where are the list of known issues?
> > - Where is the TODO list?
>
> We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
> to accept it. We are still in incubation
>
>
> > - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we
> > forget that the current version is Axis 1.3)
>
> I don't see the version of a jar as influencing whether or not we
> accept a contribution.
>
>
> > - Is there any relation to workflow?
>
> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
> within its scope.
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
>
> > - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
> > project Agila?
>
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
>
>
> > - Are there people from sybase who will be working?
>
> Yes
>
>
> > - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to
> > be one too?
>
> Not at all - this is just some code being donated to the ServiceMix
> project. No umbrella.
>
>
> > - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
>
> Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
> the test cases for example
>
>
> > - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code
> > inside out?
>
> We've looked pretty closely at it and really like it.
>
>
> > - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole
> > then why should it be accepted?
>
> As I already said in reply to Ken; there are quire a few commiters
> simply itching to work on the code and some contributors from Sybase
> too.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
With my Geronimo PMC member hat on. i've already cast my VOTE
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=113889773909505&w=2).
Now that i have your attention :) and i have a bit more information
that i did not have before, but i still think a standalone BPEL
vibrant project is a necessary addition to our aresenal and things
should not get buried under layers of projects and become a check mark
on a marketing wish list for someone.
So reiterating, I would like the donors to work with incubator
directly, write a complete proposal with pros and cons, show up with
people who will continue working on the project including the existing
servicemix community and others who may wish to join and follow the
incubator process for setting up a new project given the stand alone
nature of the code and its supposed completeness.
thanks,
dims
On 2/2/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2006, at 18:36, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a
> > clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like.
>
> We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
> PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
> the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
> proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
>
>
> > *PLEASE* CC
> > general@incubator.
>
> Will do.
>
>
> > - Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
> > - Where are the list of known issues?
> > - Where is the TODO list?
>
> We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
> to accept it. We are still in incubation
>
>
> > - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we
> > forget that the current version is Axis 1.3)
>
> I don't see the version of a jar as influencing whether or not we
> accept a contribution.
>
>
> > - Is there any relation to workflow?
>
> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
> within its scope.
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
>
> > - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
> > project Agila?
>
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
>
>
> > - Are there people from sybase who will be working?
>
> Yes
>
>
> > - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to
> > be one too?
>
> Not at all - this is just some code being donated to the ServiceMix
> project. No umbrella.
>
>
> > - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
>
> Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
> the test cases for example
>
>
> > - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code
> > inside out?
>
> We've looked pretty closely at it and really like it.
>
>
> > - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole
> > then why should it be accepted?
>
> As I already said in reply to Ken; there are quire a few commiters
> simply itching to work on the code and some contributors from Sybase
> too.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation
of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
> PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
> the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
> proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
I do, since accepting a donation without a lot more information
isn't appropriate.
>>- Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
>>- Where are the list of known issues?
>>- Where is the TODO list?
>
> We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
> to accept it. We are still in incubation
:
>>- Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
>>project Agila?
>
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
Um, no -- we don't vote to accept a patch and *then* find out
what's in it. (Not referring to the interop question.)
>>- Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
>
> Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
> the test cases for example
Dims asked about what was on the tin, and the response
was 'we'll update the status with that after we've
accepted it.' Not acceptable as stated.
Let's slow down.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ+JnvZrNPMCpn3XdAQKb1AQAit5HlG6LcBG0pgUP403ID73AgJHY1PbZ
/8elRGFPfuwbcuYkQGXX8XMRetEHheKd9F+FteNPIFMzgO5c+bAhtuFJhRSxNMiA
NDCjxNBeipGMYemktXxT9+M4qKHwLrqtxcUfLt4lzNyYlolwrGFdaKlzpLP9pbUV
jMp7ILhSeqs=
=doml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
With my Geronimo PMC member hat on. i've already cast my VOTE
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=113889773909505&w=2).
Now that i have your attention :) and i have a bit more information
that i did not have before, but i still think a standalone BPEL
vibrant project is a necessary addition to our aresenal and things
should not get buried under layers of projects and become a check mark
on a marketing wish list for someone.
So reiterating, I would like the donors to work with incubator
directly, write a complete proposal with pros and cons, show up with
people who will continue working on the project including the existing
servicemix community and others who may wish to join and follow the
incubator process for setting up a new project given the stand alone
nature of the code and its supposed completeness.
thanks,
dims
On 2/2/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2006, at 18:36, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > There is no proposal, there is just a zip, unless someone is a
> > clairvoyant, we can't figure out things like.
>
> We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
> PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
> the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
> proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
>
>
> > *PLEASE* CC
> > general@incubator.
>
> Will do.
>
>
> > - Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
> > - Where are the list of known issues?
> > - Where is the TODO list?
>
> We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
> to accept it. We are still in incubation
>
>
> > - Why is Axis version 1.2 RC1 (and not even Axis 1.2 final even if we
> > forget that the current version is Axis 1.3)
>
> I don't see the version of a jar as influencing whether or not we
> accept a contribution.
>
>
> > - Is there any relation to workflow?
>
> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
> within its scope.
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
>
> > - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
> > project Agila?
>
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
>
>
> > - Are there people from sybase who will be working?
>
> Yes
>
>
> > - Geronimo is becoming an umbrella rapidly and now ServiceMix wants to
> > be one too?
>
> Not at all - this is just some code being donated to the ServiceMix
> project. No umbrella.
>
>
> > - Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
>
> Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
> the test cases for example
>
>
> > - Do *ANY* of the existing servicemix committers know this code
> > inside out?
>
> We've looked pretty closely at it and really like it.
>
>
> > - If people are not going to touch this contrib code with a barge pole
> > then why should it be accepted?
>
> As I already said in reply to Ken; there are quire a few commiters
> simply itching to work on the code and some contributors from Sybase
> too.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation
of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Strachan wrote:
>
> We were first voting to see if the servicemix community and geronimo
> PMC were willing to accept the donation. Given it fits nicely with
> the existing ServiceMix incubation proposal I see no need for a new
> proposal for a donation of code to an existing incubating project.
I do, since accepting a donation without a lot more information
isn't appropriate.
>>- Which specific version of the spec is implemented?
>>- Where are the list of known issues?
>>- Where is the TODO list?
>
> We were gonna update the status document of ServiceMix if folks voted
> to accept it. We are still in incubation
:
>>- Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing incubation
>>project Agila?
>
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
Um, no -- we don't vote to accept a patch and *then* find out
what's in it. (Not referring to the interop question.)
>>- Why are people talking as though the code is FINAL
>
> Its a stable implementation that does what it says on the tin. See
> the test cases for example
Dims asked about what was on the tin, and the response
was 'we'll update the status with that after we've
accepted it.' Not acceptable as stated.
Let's slow down.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ+JnvZrNPMCpn3XdAQKb1AQAit5HlG6LcBG0pgUP403ID73AgJHY1PbZ
/8elRGFPfuwbcuYkQGXX8XMRetEHheKd9F+FteNPIFMzgO5c+bAhtuFJhRSxNMiA
NDCjxNBeipGMYemktXxT9+M4qKHwLrqtxcUfLt4lzNyYlolwrGFdaKlzpLP9pbUV
jMp7ILhSeqs=
=doml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 2 Feb 2006, at 20:51, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>> Given it fits nicely with the existing ServiceMix incubation
>> proposal I see no need for a new proposal for a donation of
>> code to an existing incubating project.
>
> We don't start to incubate a chicken, and then import a barnyard
> under the
> same proposal, just because it fits well with a chicken.
>
> What I am hearing is that NOT that people don't want the new
> material, but
> that while it may fit with ServiceMix, it can also fit well with other
> projects, and they want to allow that separation.
>
> You may feel otherwise, although that is not clear to me from:
I certainly do feel otherwise as do the folks donating the code and
the other members of the ServiceMix project.
>> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
>> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
>> within its scope.
>
> We have at least two (2) ESB projects here. Is this proposal really
> ServiceMix specific?
An orchestration engine and JBI go together like a J2EE application
server and a JTA provider (transaction manager). JBI (JSR 208) is the
JCP standard container model for deploying integration services; so
orchestration engines should expose themselves as a JBI component, be
deployed within a JBI container and work with other JBI components
(binding components or service engines to use JBI speak). ServiceMix
is the only JBI project at Apache where it currently hosts a full JBI
container and test suite together with a large collection of existing
JBI components for various things (smart routing, audit,
transformation, rules, scripting etc). So the aim is for the
orchestration engine to become a JBI component deployable inside
ServiceMix's JBI container that can then orchestrate other JBI
components (such as the Axis or Tuscay JBI components - I'm sure in
time we'll have a Synapse JBI component too).
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components
Note that I purposely avoided the ESB buzzword in that paragraph
above as its a vague semi-meaningless term these days, like SOA and
"component" :)
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 2 Feb 2006, at 20:51, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>
>> Given it fits nicely with the existing ServiceMix incubation
>> proposal I see no need for a new proposal for a donation of
>> code to an existing incubating project.
>
> We don't start to incubate a chicken, and then import a barnyard
> under the
> same proposal, just because it fits well with a chicken.
>
> What I am hearing is that NOT that people don't want the new
> material, but
> that while it may fit with ServiceMix, it can also fit well with other
> projects, and they want to allow that separation.
>
> You may feel otherwise, although that is not clear to me from:
I certainly do feel otherwise as do the folks donating the code and
the other members of the ServiceMix project.
>> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
>> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
>> within its scope.
>
> We have at least two (2) ESB projects here. Is this proposal really
> ServiceMix specific?
An orchestration engine and JBI go together like a J2EE application
server and a JTA provider (transaction manager). JBI (JSR 208) is the
JCP standard container model for deploying integration services; so
orchestration engines should expose themselves as a JBI component, be
deployed within a JBI container and work with other JBI components
(binding components or service engines to use JBI speak). ServiceMix
is the only JBI project at Apache where it currently hosts a full JBI
container and test suite together with a large collection of existing
JBI components for various things (smart routing, audit,
transformation, rules, scripting etc). So the aim is for the
orchestration engine to become a JBI component deployable inside
ServiceMix's JBI container that can then orchestrate other JBI
components (such as the Axis or Tuscay JBI components - I'm sure in
time we'll have a Synapse JBI component too).
http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components
Note that I purposely avoided the ESB buzzword in that paragraph
above as its a vague semi-meaningless term these days, like SOA and
"component" :)
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Why rewind? (Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
James Strachan wrote:
> Given it fits nicely with the existing ServiceMix incubation
> proposal I see no need for a new proposal for a donation of
> code to an existing incubating project.
We don't start to incubate a chicken, and then import a barnyard under the
same proposal, just because it fits well with a chicken.
What I am hearing is that NOT that people don't want the new material, but
that while it may fit with ServiceMix, it can also fit well with other
projects, and they want to allow that separation.
You may feel otherwise, although that is not clear to me from:
> Not really, its an orchestration engine for an ESB so as I've already
> said its very well suited to the ServiceMix project and first well
> within its scope.
We have at least two (2) ESB projects here. Is this proposal really
ServiceMix specific?
> > - Is there no opportunity for interaction with our Existing
> > incubation project Agila?
> We'll see - lets first vote to accept the patch then let the
> community decide those things down the road.
Actually, we do try to raise these issues when planning Incubation.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org