Thoughts on Pluto 1.1 / Pluto 2.0 / WSRP 1.0 / WSRP 2.0

[Charles Severance <cs...@umich.edu>]

For me - with Pluto 1.1 being so cleverly designed as a modular drop  
in for many applications to support 168, I see the future looking  
quite bright for increasing support for JSR-168 and JSR-286 going  
forward.

A big question to me is how we will hook WSRP into the increasingly  
elegant Pluto picture.

- Should we try to do some refactor work on WSRP 1.0 and hook it to  
pluto 1.1  in a nice pluggable way?

- Is there any effort underway to produce a reference implementation  
of WSRP 2.0? If so - is it connected to Pluto 1.1 or 2.0?

WSRP 1.0 suffered in the open source world pretty badly because the  
reference implementation did not get much uptake.  I would hope that  
next time around we could do better.

/Chuck

GA Release Next? (was Re: Thoughts on Pluto 1.1 / Pluto 2.0 / WSRP 1.0 / WSRP 2.0)

["David H. DeWolf" <dd...@apache.org>]

Elliot Metsger wrote:
> 
> I'm willing to participate in that effort but I'd 
> really like to see a solid Pluto 1.1 final get out the door before I 
> could commit my time.
> 
> Elliot

Now that beta's finally out the door.  We need a plan in place to make 
that GA release happen.  What does everyone think needs to be done?


David

Re: Thoughts on Pluto 1.1 / Pluto 2.0 / WSRP 1.0 / WSRP 2.0

[Charles Severance <cs...@umich.edu>]

I agree - I have been quietly telling folks in the open source portal  
world that I know to prepare for having to get involved here just  
like you say.

I was just wondering if there was some other activity we did not know  
about.

Also a big question is whether or not WSRP4J should be the platform  
for 2.0 or is there a ground-up rewrite happening.  If it looks like  
WSRP4J *is* going to be our path to WSRP 2.0 - then we should get  
folks involved in WSRP4J now.

Off to join the WSRP4J list :)

/Chuck

On Oct 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Elliot Metsger wrote:

> I think this is something that would/should/could involve the  
> WSRP4J community.  I'm not sure that anyone has asked Chuck's  
> questions on the WSRP lists.
>
> I do know from lurking on the WSRP lists that there has been some  
> recent activity related to abstracting away the current  
> dependencies that WSRP4J has with Pluto (1.0.x), and make the  
> container a pluggable component.
>
> I personally don't know of any efforts regarding a WSRP 2.0 ref  
> impl, by Apache or anyone else.
>
> My feeling is that if some developers showed up on the wsrp-dev  
> list ready to discuss design, roll up their sleeves, and do some  
> work, that it would be welcomed.  I'm willing to participate in  
> that effort but I'd really like to see a solid Pluto 1.1 final get  
> out the door before I could commit my time.
>
> Elliot
>
> Charles Severance wrote:
>> For me - with Pluto 1.1 being so cleverly designed as a modular  
>> drop in for many applications to support 168, I see the future  
>> looking quite bright for increasing support for JSR-168 and  
>> JSR-286 going forward.
>> A big question to me is how we will hook WSRP into the  
>> increasingly elegant Pluto picture.
>> - Should we try to do some refactor work on WSRP 1.0 and hook it  
>> to pluto 1.1  in a nice pluggable way?
>> - Is there any effort underway to produce a reference  
>> implementation of WSRP 2.0? If so - is it connected to Pluto 1.1  
>> or 2.0?
>> WSRP 1.0 suffered in the open source world pretty badly because  
>> the reference implementation did not get much uptake.  I would  
>> hope that next time around we could do better.
>> /Chuck
>
>

Re: Thoughts on Pluto 1.1 / Pluto 2.0 / WSRP 1.0 / WSRP 2.0

[Elliot Metsger <em...@jhu.edu>]

I think this is something that would/should/could involve the WSRP4J 
community.  I'm not sure that anyone has asked Chuck's questions on the 
WSRP lists.

I do know from lurking on the WSRP lists that there has been some recent 
activity related to abstracting away the current dependencies that 
WSRP4J has with Pluto (1.0.x), and make the container a pluggable component.

I personally don't know of any efforts regarding a WSRP 2.0 ref impl, by 
Apache or anyone else.

My feeling is that if some developers showed up on the wsrp-dev list 
ready to discuss design, roll up their sleeves, and do some work, that 
it would be welcomed.  I'm willing to participate in that effort but I'd 
really like to see a solid Pluto 1.1 final get out the door before I 
could commit my time.

Elliot

Charles Severance wrote:
> For me - with Pluto 1.1 being so cleverly designed as a modular drop in 
> for many applications to support 168, I see the future looking quite 
> bright for increasing support for JSR-168 and JSR-286 going forward.
> 
> A big question to me is how we will hook WSRP into the increasingly 
> elegant Pluto picture.
> 
> - Should we try to do some refactor work on WSRP 1.0 and hook it to 
> pluto 1.1  in a nice pluggable way?
> 
> - Is there any effort underway to produce a reference implementation of 
> WSRP 2.0? If so - is it connected to Pluto 1.1 or 2.0?
> 
> WSRP 1.0 suffered in the open source world pretty badly because the 
> reference implementation did not get much uptake.  I would hope that 
> next time around we could do better.
> 
> /Chuck