You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> on 2007/10/01 20:56:11 UTC
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
ant elder wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that the
>
>> mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS.
>>
>
>
> Thats the one i was mainly thinking about.
>
> "wait until it reaches OASIS" is one option but it doesn't seem ideal as it
> means it could take quite some time before Tuscany can implement some of the
> new features.
>
> The other end of the spectrum is to say we fine with the OSOA way of "OSOA
> provides means for providing feedback and means for joining as a supporter
> for access to some non-public materials", that doesn't seem ideal to me
> either as it doesn't seem right for an Apache project to be implementing
> something where only a select group have access to the design docs.
>
> I don't know the answer, I think the main thing is we've shown we understand
> the issue, have reached some consensus, and are clear about whats happening.
> I'd be more comfortable with Tuscany only implementing OSOA things when
> there's a draft published publicly, but even that isn't perfect as it takes
> sometime for drafts to get published publicly (lets hope there's an example
> of this imminently).
>
> What do others think?
>
> ...ant
>
>
My 2c:
- Work on OSOA public drafts.
- Push OSOA to publish drafts quickly when the Tuscany user+developer
community is asking for it (a draft of a transaction policy just got
published for example [1], I hope we can get implemented in Tuscany soon
as several users have been asking for transaction support).
- Work on ongoing OASIS work as it's public.
Thoughts?
[1]
http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_TransactionPolicy_V051b.pdf
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On 10/1/07, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 This sounds reasonable, and open.
>
> On 10/1/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ant elder wrote:
> > > On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that
> the
> > >
> > >> mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Thats the one i was mainly thinking about.
> > >
> > > "wait until it reaches OASIS" is one option but it doesn't seem ideal
> as it
> > > means it could take quite some time before Tuscany can implement some
> of the
> > > new features.
> > >
> > > The other end of the spectrum is to say we fine with the OSOA way of
> "OSOA
> > > provides means for providing feedback and means for joining as a
> supporter
> > > for access to some non-public materials", that doesn't seem ideal to
> me
> > > either as it doesn't seem right for an Apache project to be
> implementing
> > > something where only a select group have access to the design docs.
> > >
> > > I don't know the answer, I think the main thing is we've shown we
> understand
> > > the issue, have reached some consensus, and are clear about whats
> happening.
> > > I'd be more comfortable with Tuscany only implementing OSOA things
> when
> > > there's a draft published publicly, but even that isn't perfect as it
> takes
> > > sometime for drafts to get published publicly (lets hope there's an
> example
> > > of this imminently).
> > >
> > > What do others think?
> > >
> > > ...ant
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My 2c:
> >
> > - Work on OSOA public drafts.
> >
> > - Push OSOA to publish drafts quickly when the Tuscany user+developer
> > community is asking for it (a draft of a transaction policy just got
> > published for example [1], I hope we can get implemented in Tuscany soon
> > as several users have been asking for transaction support).
> >
> > - Work on ongoing OASIS work as it's public.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_TransactionPolicy_V051b.pdf
> >
> > --
> > Jean-Sebastien
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
> +1 the only option we have is to implement publicly available
specifications.
Simon
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1 This sounds reasonable, and open.
On 10/1/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that the
> >
> >> mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thats the one i was mainly thinking about.
> >
> > "wait until it reaches OASIS" is one option but it doesn't seem ideal as it
> > means it could take quite some time before Tuscany can implement some of the
> > new features.
> >
> > The other end of the spectrum is to say we fine with the OSOA way of "OSOA
> > provides means for providing feedback and means for joining as a supporter
> > for access to some non-public materials", that doesn't seem ideal to me
> > either as it doesn't seem right for an Apache project to be implementing
> > something where only a select group have access to the design docs.
> >
> > I don't know the answer, I think the main thing is we've shown we understand
> > the issue, have reached some consensus, and are clear about whats happening.
> > I'd be more comfortable with Tuscany only implementing OSOA things when
> > there's a draft published publicly, but even that isn't perfect as it takes
> > sometime for drafts to get published publicly (lets hope there's an example
> > of this imminently).
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
>
> My 2c:
>
> - Work on OSOA public drafts.
>
> - Push OSOA to publish drafts quickly when the Tuscany user+developer
> community is asking for it (a draft of a transaction policy just got
> published for example [1], I hope we can get implemented in Tuscany soon
> as several users have been asking for transaction support).
>
> - Work on ongoing OASIS work as it's public.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1]
> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_TransactionPolicy_V051b.pdf
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
This is a good description of what Tuscany does in addition to the spec
implementation. Is everyone OK with adding this text or a simpler version of
it to the overview page?
Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are not
being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I am
thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At some
point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec venues,
in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple vendors.
This will not be required in all cases. An example of
non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
standardization is unnecessary.
On 10/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Mike Edwards wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > I'd like to offer a different perspective....
> >
> > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany
> >>> on OSOA
> >>> things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
> >>>
> >>> ...ant
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's what I mean.
> >>
> >
> > I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that
> > are coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role.
> >
> > Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are
> > not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I
> > am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
> > JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
> >
> > I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
> > development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At
> > some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
> > resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec
> > venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple
> > vendors.
> >
> > This will not be required in all cases. An example of
> > non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
> > it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
> > standardization is unnecessary.
> >
> >
> > Yours, Mike.
> >
>
> +1 to all that, it's a good description of what we are doing in Tuscany,
> not incompatible with what we were saying in this thread as we were only
> trying to clarify a position with respect to non-public spec work
> happening in OSOA.
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
RE: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Brady Johnson <bj...@roguewave.com>.
+1 from me too.
Regards
--------------------
Brady Johnson
Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA
Rogue Wave Software - brady.johnson@roguewave.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Sebastien Delfino [mailto:jsdelfino@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9:57 AM
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Mike Edwards wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to offer a different perspective....
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>>
>>> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany
>>> on OSOA things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's what I mean.
>>
>
> I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that
> are coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role.
>
> Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are
> not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I
> am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
> JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
>
> I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
> development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At
> some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
> resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec
> venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple
> vendors.
>
> This will not be required in all cases. An example of
> non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
> it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
> standardization is unnecessary.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
+1 to all that, it's a good description of what we are doing in Tuscany,
not incompatible with what we were saying in this thread as we were only
trying to clarify a position with respect to non-public spec work
happening in OSOA.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Mike Edwards wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to offer a different perspective....
>
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>>
>>> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany
>>> on OSOA
>>> things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's what I mean.
>>
>
> I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that
> are coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role.
>
> Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are
> not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I
> am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
> JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
>
> I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
> development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At
> some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
> resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec
> venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple
> vendors.
>
> This will not be required in all cases. An example of
> non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
> it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
> standardization is unnecessary.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
+1 to all that, it's a good description of what we are doing in Tuscany,
not incompatible with what we were saying in this thread as we were only
trying to clarify a position with respect to non-public spec work
happening in OSOA.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
I'd like to offer a different perspective....
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>>
>> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany on
>> OSOA
>> things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
>>
>> ...ant
>>
>>
>
> That's what I mean.
>
I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that are
coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role.
Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are not
being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I am
thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby,
JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC.
I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster
development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At some
point, some of these should look for a level of standardization
resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec venues,
in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple vendors.
This will not be required in all cases. An example of
non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where
it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so
standardization is unnecessary.
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
ant elder wrote:
> On 10/1/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that
>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thats the one i was mainly thinking about.
>>>
>>> "wait until it reaches OASIS" is one option but it doesn't seem ideal as
>>>
>> it
>>
>>> means it could take quite some time before Tuscany can implement some of
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> new features.
>>>
>>> The other end of the spectrum is to say we fine with the OSOA way of
>>>
>> "OSOA
>>
>>> provides means for providing feedback and means for joining as a
>>>
>> supporter
>>
>>> for access to some non-public materials", that doesn't seem ideal to me
>>> either as it doesn't seem right for an Apache project to be implementing
>>> something where only a select group have access to the design docs.
>>>
>>> I don't know the answer, I think the main thing is we've shown we
>>>
>> understand
>>
>>> the issue, have reached some consensus, and are clear about whats
>>>
>> happening.
>>
>>> I'd be more comfortable with Tuscany only implementing OSOA things when
>>> there's a draft published publicly, but even that isn't perfect as it
>>>
>> takes
>>
>>> sometime for drafts to get published publicly (lets hope there's an
>>>
>> example
>>
>>> of this imminently).
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>>
>>> ...ant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My 2c:
>>
>> - Work on OSOA public drafts.
>>
>> - Push OSOA to publish drafts quickly when the Tuscany user+developer
>> community is asking for it (a draft of a transaction policy just got
>> published for example [1], I hope we can get implemented in Tuscany soon
>> as several users have been asking for transaction support).
>>
>> - Work on ongoing OASIS work as it's public.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_TransactionPolicy_V051b.pdf
>>
>
>
> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany on OSOA
> things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
>
> ...ant
>
>
That's what I mean.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Graduation: Spec Openness
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On 10/1/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 9/27/07, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 5 - On ongoing OSOA work. Assuming that there is ongoing work and that
> the
> >
> >> mode of operation is unchanged, maybe we wait until it reaches OASIS.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thats the one i was mainly thinking about.
> >
> > "wait until it reaches OASIS" is one option but it doesn't seem ideal as
> it
> > means it could take quite some time before Tuscany can implement some of
> the
> > new features.
> >
> > The other end of the spectrum is to say we fine with the OSOA way of
> "OSOA
> > provides means for providing feedback and means for joining as a
> supporter
> > for access to some non-public materials", that doesn't seem ideal to me
> > either as it doesn't seem right for an Apache project to be implementing
> > something where only a select group have access to the design docs.
> >
> > I don't know the answer, I think the main thing is we've shown we
> understand
> > the issue, have reached some consensus, and are clear about whats
> happening.
> > I'd be more comfortable with Tuscany only implementing OSOA things when
> > there's a draft published publicly, but even that isn't perfect as it
> takes
> > sometime for drafts to get published publicly (lets hope there's an
> example
> > of this imminently).
> >
> > What do others think?
> >
> > ...ant
> >
> >
>
> My 2c:
>
> - Work on OSOA public drafts.
>
> - Push OSOA to publish drafts quickly when the Tuscany user+developer
> community is asking for it (a draft of a transaction policy just got
> published for example [1], I hope we can get implemented in Tuscany soon
> as several users have been asking for transaction support).
>
> - Work on ongoing OASIS work as it's public.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_TransactionPolicy_V051b.pdf
That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany on OSOA
things that are not public, which is what you mean right?)
...ant