You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk> on 2006/02/03 10:18:50 UTC
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
and now at
Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
Also, how is it that a project under incubation can start sucking in
more projects?? The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
running The Apache Way.
Sanjiva.
On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 16:22 +0000, James Strachan wrote:
> We have received the generous donation of a complete and working BPE
> engine to the ServiceMix project...
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-servicemix-dev/
> 200602.mbox/%
> 3cf94cbdb00602011120t68cfb561necc044dbc488645a@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> the contributor has offered to donate to Apache & complete the
> necessary software grants & IP clearance and to work with us on
> integrating it into ServiceMix.
>
> For those of you maybe not aware; ServiceMIx is an ESB project
> defined around JBI (JSR 208) the JCP standard API to integration
> components along with being the standard container model for a BPE.
> ServiceMix already has the JBI container and has a suite of JBI
> integration components already for smart routing, transformation,
> rules, scripting, auditing etc...
> http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components
>
> So it makes complete sense to add a BPE to that component suite. Note
> that since ServiceMix already has integration components to Apache
> Axis and Apache Tuscany, the integration of the BPE with ServiceMix
> should benefit those projects too (with Apache Synapse possibly too
> via the Axis integration - though we need to work on that one a bit).
>
> Also having a BPE fully integrated into Geronimo via the JBI
> container would mean that we could start to orchestrate pretty much
> everything in the Geronimo stack! I'm certainly very excited by this
> move...
>
>
> [ ] +1 accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project
> [ ] 0 don't mind either way
> [ ] -1 I object because: .......
>
>
> Here's my +1
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
Actually I'm a bit surprised by the proposal of making the BPEL engine
part of ServiceMix as well. ESBs and orchestration engines work pretty
well with each other, that's agreed, but so do Tomcat and Struts.
I'm working on Agila BPEL and I agree that the Agila community isn't
the most active around here. So getting some fresh blood and maybe
fresh code as well is a good thing (the most important being new
contributors). But I can't see any reason for having 2 BPEL servers
here in 2 separate projects. I don't have anything against creating a
new separate project and maybe take Agila BPEL into it (if there is
something to take given the new contribution). But having a whole new
BPEL engine getting in under the ServiceMix hat sounds a bit like a
Trojan horse.
Cheers,
Matthieu.
>Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like
theway you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live
withinServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a
JBIcontainer. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL
engineand has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't
you havea separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI
componentEXACTLY the way you work with other projects like
XFire?Seriously James I've never seen anyone disagree (in any
effectivemanner) with you on the list(s). Why is that? Is it because
alldecisions happen off-list and all that happens here is the
love-festas Sanjiva described? Community is not about borg-like ok-ing
ofproposals.We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You
like a verygood integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like
a very goodBPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on
both sidesand some who may like both objectives.Why can't we agree to
make it work as a separate entity? If not atleast tell us what your
*shopping list* contains as to what other JBIcomponents you are going
to bring in by the time incubation is over?thanks,dimsOn 2/3/06, James
Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:- Show quoted text -> On 3
Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:> > James,> >> > There are
2 problems:> > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation
is out-of-scope> > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for
ServiceMix.>> The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...>
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal>> its a JBI
container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a> JBI
component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote> you
never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could> and
could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what>
components you did vote for?>>> > I don't> > like what's happening and
the way you are doing it.>> Sorry about that, we're trying to fix
it>>> > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a
decision one> > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like
what the> > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the
future say "BPEL> > 2.0"> >> > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new
proposal for a separate project.>> So here's the thing; no-one
involved (the folks donating the code and> the committers on the
ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all> want to work in the
single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI> container and JBI
components live and are developed, documented and> tested together. We
want a single, strong community around JBI.>> 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>>--Davanum Srinivas :
http://wso2.com/blogs/----------------------------------------------------------------------
Show quoted text -To unsubscribe, e-mail:
general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.orgFor additional commands,
e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
I don't think you need much faith to believe that a BPEL engine is
general purpose. I think that there are several projects at the ASF
that have interest and would benefit from participation in such an beastie.
geir
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Ken,
I apologize!!! it's just like hitting your head on a brick wall and
going around in circles.
James,
I hereby remove my -1 on the contrib to ServiceMix. Go ahead and do
anything you want, however you want, i don't care anymore. If Ken or
Noel or any other Geronimo or Incubator PMC member wants to do
something then that's their call. Am not going to be part of this any
more.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
> > mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
> > like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
> > everyone else is not part of the community?
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's slow down even more. That's not
> an acceptable tone; it's a major escalation. Dims, please
> don't infer the worst motives or insults!
>
> I don't see a direct correlation between the quoted message
> and the response above. I assume you're referring, at one
> remove, to this by James:
>
> > Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> > and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> > WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> > projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> > creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> > are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> > inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> > granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> > then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> > becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
> - --
> #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+OBFZrNPMCpn3XdAQKmSwQAm/tUOt8X2FNfpbz7IbcLVKokJvlRrtZH
> 55pij+60OozD893j8sso7jMl9/EY2yYIwDT1mTrqSLMXdW1vZH+Oj2gGbdDwiSPN
> nPwgTrenr8seLb7UlGMUr20MOsVKCQ3/ArteNFESQ75X2U+FrM5bKUU9Sj7p92x5
> eySACXAaC1A=
> =qOu+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Ken,
I apologize!!! it's just like hitting your head on a brick wall and
going around in circles.
James,
I hereby remove my -1 on the contrib to ServiceMix. Go ahead and do
anything you want, however you want, i don't care anymore. If Ken or
Noel or any other Geronimo or Incubator PMC member wants to do
something then that's their call. Am not going to be part of this any
more.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
> > mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
> > like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
> > everyone else is not part of the community?
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's slow down even more. That's not
> an acceptable tone; it's a major escalation. Dims, please
> don't infer the worst motives or insults!
>
> I don't see a direct correlation between the quoted message
> and the response above. I assume you're referring, at one
> remove, to this by James:
>
> > Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> > and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> > WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> > projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> > creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> > are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> > inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> > granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> > then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> > becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
> - --
> #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+OBFZrNPMCpn3XdAQKmSwQAm/tUOt8X2FNfpbz7IbcLVKokJvlRrtZH
> 55pij+60OozD893j8sso7jMl9/EY2yYIwDT1mTrqSLMXdW1vZH+Oj2gGbdDwiSPN
> nPwgTrenr8seLb7UlGMUr20MOsVKCQ3/ArteNFESQ75X2U+FrM5bKUU9Sj7p92x5
> eySACXAaC1A=
> =qOu+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Ken,
I apologize!!! it's just like hitting your head on a brick wall and
going around in circles.
James,
I hereby remove my -1 on the contrib to ServiceMix. Go ahead and do
anything you want, however you want, i don't care anymore. If Ken or
Noel or any other Geronimo or Incubator PMC member wants to do
something then that's their call. Am not going to be part of this any
more.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
> > mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
> > like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
> > everyone else is not part of the community?
>
> Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's slow down even more. That's not
> an acceptable tone; it's a major escalation. Dims, please
> don't infer the worst motives or insults!
>
> I don't see a direct correlation between the quoted message
> and the response above. I assume you're referring, at one
> remove, to this by James:
>
> > Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> > and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> > WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> > projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> > creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> > are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> > inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> > granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> > then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> > becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
> - --
> #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+OBFZrNPMCpn3XdAQKmSwQAm/tUOt8X2FNfpbz7IbcLVKokJvlRrtZH
> 55pij+60OozD893j8sso7jMl9/EY2yYIwDT1mTrqSLMXdW1vZH+Oj2gGbdDwiSPN
> nPwgTrenr8seLb7UlGMUr20MOsVKCQ3/ArteNFESQ75X2U+FrM5bKUU9Sj7p92x5
> eySACXAaC1A=
> =qOu+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
I do agree with your point James, communities built around a narrow
scope are harder to grow and attracting new commiters can become
hazardous. However my feeling is that the failure of Agila in
attracting new committers (for now) is mostly due to a lack of public
exposure and not really to BPEL having a narrow scope. Besides, even
if there aren't many committers working on Agila yet, there are people
using it.
I'm not sure I have any weight at all in this discussion, however I
can't see why a BPEL implementation would be developed as part of a
JBI implementation. JBI is made to integrate nicely with many
components (rules engines, scripting, soap and jms layers, ...), does
that mean that all these components should be developed under the
ServiceMix umbrella? I don't believe so.
My 2 cents.
>On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:>> Incidentally
its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila>> and various
projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,>> WSRF, TSIK
etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making>> projects too
small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of>> creating a
vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC>> are starting
to consider collapsing projects together due to>> inactivity, I think
we should stay open to the idea of creating less>> granular projects
that can build a thriving community to start with>> then, if the
community decides, split things off later if something>> becomes so
popular it deserves its own project.>> James, bearing in mind the
*content* of Dims questions above,> rather than how he phrased them,
would you please expand on> the above to address how Dims apparently
interpreted it?The point I was trying to make above has nothing to do
with ws-folksor anyone involved in the projects - apologies if my
cold-inducedramblings caused any offence. It was more just a general
observationon project size and community growth. Its hard growing
communities;it takes a lot of time and effort. Projects can be too
broad(Jakarta) and too granular - but sometimes its easier to
buildcommunity inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo
forJ2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for
utilitycode etc) than to have lots of smaller
projects.James-------http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/- Show quoted
text ----------------------------------------------------------------------To
unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.orgFor
additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
>> J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
>> code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
>
> Is ServiceMix intended to be a TLP, or will it continue to be a
> sub-project of Geronimo?
>
> This email leads me to believe that ServiceMix might not have a strong
> overlap with J2EE - which is Geronimo's mission. Hence, might a new
> TLP be best? -- justin
Given the synergy with other Geronimo code in ServiceMix (it reuses
Geronimo kernel, transaction manager, JCA container, ActiveMQ etc)
and the large developer cross over in both projects, I'm personally
happy for ServiceMix to be a sub project of Geronimo. The next
milestone for ServiceMix is graduation from the incubator which is
our main aim currently as we want to be able to make a real release
so folks can use the code. I'm personally very happy with the
governance of the Geronimo PMC but I wouldn't object if in the future
the community decided that ServiceMix should be a TLP.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
>> J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
>> code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
>
> Is ServiceMix intended to be a TLP, or will it continue to be a
> sub-project of Geronimo?
>
> This email leads me to believe that ServiceMix might not have a strong
> overlap with J2EE - which is Geronimo's mission. Hence, might a new
> TLP be best? -- justin
Given the synergy with other Geronimo code in ServiceMix (it reuses
Geronimo kernel, transaction manager, JCA container, ActiveMQ etc)
and the large developer cross over in both projects, I'm personally
happy for ServiceMix to be a sub project of Geronimo. The next
milestone for ServiceMix is graduation from the incubator which is
our main aim currently as we want to be able to make a real release
so folks can use the code. I'm personally very happy with the
governance of the Geronimo PMC but I wouldn't object if in the future
the community decided that ServiceMix should be a TLP.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
>> J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
>> code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
>
> Is ServiceMix intended to be a TLP, or will it continue to be a
> sub-project of Geronimo?
>
> This email leads me to believe that ServiceMix might not have a strong
> overlap with J2EE - which is Geronimo's mission. Hence, might a new
> TLP be best? -- justin
Given the synergy with other Geronimo code in ServiceMix (it reuses
Geronimo kernel, transaction manager, JCA container, ActiveMQ etc)
and the large developer cross over in both projects, I'm personally
happy for ServiceMix to be a sub project of Geronimo. The next
milestone for ServiceMix is graduation from the incubator which is
our main aim currently as we want to be able to make a real release
so folks can use the code. I'm personally very happy with the
governance of the Geronimo PMC but I wouldn't object if in the future
the community decided that ServiceMix should be a TLP.
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
> J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
> code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
Is ServiceMix intended to be a TLP, or will it continue to be a
sub-project of Geronimo?
This email leads me to believe that ServiceMix might not have a strong
overlap with J2EE - which is Geronimo's mission. Hence, might a new
TLP be best? -- justin
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
> J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
> code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
Is ServiceMix intended to be a TLP, or will it continue to be a
sub-project of Geronimo?
This email leads me to believe that ServiceMix might not have a strong
overlap with J2EE - which is Geronimo's mission. Hence, might a new
TLP be best? -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Matthieu Riou <ma...@gmail.com>.
I do agree with your point James, communities built around a narrow
scope are harder to grow and attracting new commiters can become
hazardous. However my feeling is that the failure of Agila in
attracting new committers (for now) is mostly due to a lack of public
exposure and not really to BPEL having a narrow scope. Besides, even
if there aren't many committers working on Agila yet, there are people
using it.
I'm not sure I have any weight at all in this discussion, however I
can't see why a BPEL implementation would be developed as part of a
JBI implementation. JBI is made to integrate nicely with many
components (rules engines, scripting, soap and jms layers, ...), does
that mean that all these components should be developed under the
ServiceMix umbrella? I don't believe so.
My 2 cents.
>On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:>> Incidentally
its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila>> and various
projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,>> WSRF, TSIK
etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making>> projects too
small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of>> creating a
vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC>> are starting
to consider collapsing projects together due to>> inactivity, I think
we should stay open to the idea of creating less>> granular projects
that can build a thriving community to start with>> then, if the
community decides, split things off later if something>> becomes so
popular it deserves its own project.>> James, bearing in mind the
*content* of Dims questions above,> rather than how he phrased them,
would you please expand on> the above to address how Dims apparently
interpreted it?The point I was trying to make above has nothing to do
with ws-folksor anyone involved in the projects - apologies if my
cold-inducedramblings caused any offence. It was more just a general
observationon project size and community growth. Its hard growing
communities;it takes a lot of time and effort. Projects can be too
broad(Jakarta) and too granular - but sometimes its easier to
buildcommunity inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo
forJ2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for
utilitycode etc) than to have lots of smaller
projects.James-------http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/- Show quoted
text ----------------------------------------------------------------------To
unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.orgFor
additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
The point I was trying to make above has nothing to do with ws-folks
or anyone involved in the projects - apologies if my cold-induced
ramblings caused any offence. It was more just a general observation
on project size and community growth. Its hard growing communities;
it takes a lot of time and effort. Projects can be too broad
(Jakarta) and too granular - but sometimes its easier to build
community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
The point I was trying to make above has nothing to do with ws-folks
or anyone involved in the projects - apologies if my cold-induced
ramblings caused any offence. It was more just a general observation
on project size and community growth. Its hard growing communities;
it takes a lot of time and effort. Projects can be too broad
(Jakarta) and too granular - but sometimes its easier to build
community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 16:13, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
> rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
> the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
The point I was trying to make above has nothing to do with ws-folks
or anyone involved in the projects - apologies if my cold-induced
ramblings caused any offence. It was more just a general observation
on project size and community growth. Its hard growing communities;
it takes a lot of time and effort. Projects can be too broad
(Jakarta) and too granular - but sometimes its easier to build
community inside a single project with one overall aim (Geronimo for
J2EE, ServiceMix for JBI, Jakarta Commons / WS Commons for utility
code etc) than to have lots of smaller projects.
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: [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
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
> mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
> like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
> everyone else is not part of the community?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's slow down even more. That's not
an acceptable tone; it's a major escalation. Dims, please
don't infer the worst motives or insults!
I don't see a direct correlation between the quoted message
and the response above. I assume you're referring, at one
remove, to this by James:
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
- --
#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+OBFZrNPMCpn3XdAQKmSwQAm/tUOt8X2FNfpbz7IbcLVKokJvlRrtZH
55pij+60OozD893j8sso7jMl9/EY2yYIwDT1mTrqSLMXdW1vZH+Oj2gGbdDwiSPN
nPwgTrenr8seLb7UlGMUr20MOsVKCQ3/ArteNFESQ75X2U+FrM5bKUU9Sj7p92x5
eySACXAaC1A=
=qOu+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
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
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
> mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
> like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
> everyone else is not part of the community?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's slow down even more. That's not
an acceptable tone; it's a major escalation. Dims, please
don't infer the worst motives or insults!
I don't see a direct correlation between the quoted message
and the response above. I assume you're referring, at one
remove, to this by James:
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
James, bearing in mind the *content* of Dims questions above,
rather than how he phrased them, would you please expand on
the above to address how Dims apparently interpreted it?
- --
#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+OBFZrNPMCpn3XdAQKmSwQAm/tUOt8X2FNfpbz7IbcLVKokJvlRrtZH
55pij+60OozD893j8sso7jMl9/EY2yYIwDT1mTrqSLMXdW1vZH+Oj2gGbdDwiSPN
nPwgTrenr8seLb7UlGMUr20MOsVKCQ3/ArteNFESQ75X2U+FrM5bKUU9Sj7p92x5
eySACXAaC1A=
=qOu+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
everyone else is not part of the community?
Part of the incubation process is to to generate interest, get people
involved, make sure there is wider participation. A proposal and
emails on the general@i are part of that process to get more people
involved. Why is there so much resistance to doing that?
When paul dropped in you asked him to work on Agila. Is this what you
mean by increasing community participation? Is this how you do it?
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
> >> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
> >> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
> >> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
> >> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
> >> have
> >> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
> >> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> > :
> >> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
> >> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
> >> good
> >> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
> >> sides
> >> and some who may like both objectives.
> >
> > An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> > couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> > this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> > be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
>
> Not at all.
>
> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
> container, the transaction manager and the other components together
> by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
> lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
> components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
> same benefit of community growth.
>
>
> > What
> > about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> > would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> > of which it is a part is released?
>
> I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
> possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
> different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
>
>
> > If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> > people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> > on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> > me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> > interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> > community despite a lack of interest in it.
> >
> > This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> > who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> > to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> > that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
>
> Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
> about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
> see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
> really :).
>
> But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
> orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
> PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
> that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
> only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
> folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
> I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
> knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
> PMC) decide.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
everyone else is not part of the community?
Part of the incubation process is to to generate interest, get people
involved, make sure there is wider participation. A proposal and
emails on the general@i are part of that process to get more people
involved. Why is there so much resistance to doing that?
When paul dropped in you asked him to work on Agila. Is this what you
mean by increasing community participation? Is this how you do it?
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
> >> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
> >> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
> >> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
> >> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
> >> have
> >> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
> >> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> > :
> >> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
> >> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
> >> good
> >> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
> >> sides
> >> and some who may like both objectives.
> >
> > An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> > couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> > this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> > be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
>
> Not at all.
>
> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
> container, the transaction manager and the other components together
> by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
> lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
> components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
> same benefit of community growth.
>
>
> > What
> > about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> > would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> > of which it is a part is released?
>
> I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
> possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
> different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
>
>
> > If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> > people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> > on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> > me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> > interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> > community despite a lack of interest in it.
> >
> > This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> > who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> > to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> > that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
>
> Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
> about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
> see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
> really :).
>
> But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
> orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
> PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
> that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
> only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
> folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
> I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
> knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
> PMC) decide.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Transaction Manager separation [was; [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project]
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 05 February 2006 13:58, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> James in particular lead the effort to remove theses dependencies,
> because it bugged him that these services were "trapped" in Geronimo.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I tried to use the TM from Geronimo some
time ago, and it was not "that clean" as James statements indicated. If this
is improving, then great. I withdraw my concerns.
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gu...@worldonline.fr>.
These are the dependencies for building and/or using the whole
transaction module.
For example, the geronimo-system, geronimo-core and geronimo-kernel and
geronimo-j2ee dependencies
are mainly needed to build / use the gbeans for the transaction manager.
The jencks project (www.jencks.org) uses the geronimo transaction manager
and geronimo jca connector to provide jca enabled pojos.
If you take a look at the maven pom
(http://cvs.codehaus.org/viewrep/jencks/jencks/project.xml?r=1.24),
only the geronimo-transaction and geronimo-connector are used (I exclude
the specs) and none of the aforementioned
dependencies are really required in this context.
"True" dependencies of a jar really depends on what classes you use in
the given jar... ;)
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>On Friday 03 February 2006 23:53, James Strachan wrote:
>
>
>
>>The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
>>download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
>>the transaction manager...
>>
>>
>
>
>IMHO, this is a vast exaggeration that is not entirely fair to make, and would
>like to counter with the dependencies list of the said project (see below)...
>
>Saying that TM is independent and having Geronimo's "system", "core", "j2ee"
>and "kernel" modules listed, is definately catching my attention and asking
>"What's your agenda, James?" for such misrepresentation. You could have
>high-lighted the true dependencies.
>
>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-system</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-core</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-kernel</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>concurrent</groupId>
> <artifactId>concurrent</artifactId>
> <version>1.3.4</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-logging</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.4</version>
> <url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/</url>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>howl</groupId>
> <artifactId>howl-logger</artifactId>
> <version>0.1.11</version>
> <url>http://forge.objectweb.org/projects/howl</url>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>mx4j</groupId>
> <artifactId>mx4j</artifactId>
> <version>3.0.1</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-jelly</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-jelly-tags-velocity</artifactId>
> <version>1.0</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>velocity</groupId>
> <artifactId>velocity</artifactId>
> <version>1.4</version>
> </dependency>
> </dependencies>
>
>
>Cheers
>Niclas
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@mac.com>.
Incidentally Niclas, you might want to check this page on how to reuse the Geronimo Transaction Manager and JCA container from inside any Spring application - irrespective of using a J2EE server at all.
http://jencks.org/Transaction+Manager
http://jencks.org/Home
My only agenda is to make software loosly coupled, modular and reusable.
James
On Sunday, February 05, 2006, at 05:58AM, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>Niclas,
>
>Although at one time this was true of the transaction manager in
>Geronimo, we have done some very minor work to make this optional. I
>designed the Geronimo kernel and consider it a design flaw that the
>kernel becomes a dependency of the services it manages. This is
>something we have worked to address in the current code, and
>something I plan to completely eliminate over the six months.
>
>James in particular lead the effort to remove theses dependencies,
>because it bugged him that these services were "trapped" in Geronimo.
>
>In response to the list below, I'd like to ask you if you understand
>Maven 1? Maven 1 had no concept of "test" dependencies or "optional"
>dependencies in Maven 2 termonology at the time we wrote most of the
>poms for Geronimo. This means that either only test code is using
>them or they are used by code that is only optionally loaded if the
>dependent jar is present in the system. As we convert to Maven 2
>over the next several months, you will seem many of these extra
>dependencies fall away.
>
>Basically, this is by no means an exaggeration.
>
>-dain
>
>On Feb 4, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Friday 03 February 2006 23:53, James Strachan wrote:
>>
>>> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
>>> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
>>> the transaction manager...
>>
>>
>> IMHO, this is a vast exaggeration that is not entirely fair to
>> make, and would
>> like to counter with the dependencies list of the said project (see
>> below)...
>>
>> Saying that TM is independent and having Geronimo's "system",
>> "core", "j2ee"
>> and "kernel" modules listed, is definately catching my attention
>> and asking
>> "What's your agenda, James?" for such misrepresentation. You could
>> have
>> high-lighted the true dependencies.
>>
>>
>> <dependencies>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-system</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-core</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-kernel</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec</artifactId>
>> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>concurrent</groupId>
>> <artifactId>concurrent</artifactId>
>> <version>1.3.4</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>commons-logging</groupId>
>> <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId>
>> <version>1.0.4</version>
>> <url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/</url>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>howl</groupId>
>> <artifactId>howl-logger</artifactId>
>> <version>0.1.11</version>
>> <url>http://forge.objectweb.org/projects/howl</url>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>mx4j</groupId>
>> <artifactId>mx4j</artifactId>
>> <version>3.0.1</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>commons-jelly</groupId>
>> <artifactId>commons-jelly-tags-velocity</artifactId>
>> <version>1.0</version>
>> </dependency>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>velocity</groupId>
>> <artifactId>velocity</artifactId>
>> <version>1.4</version>
>> </dependency>
>> </dependencies>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Niclas,
Although at one time this was true of the transaction manager in
Geronimo, we have done some very minor work to make this optional. I
designed the Geronimo kernel and consider it a design flaw that the
kernel becomes a dependency of the services it manages. This is
something we have worked to address in the current code, and
something I plan to completely eliminate over the six months.
James in particular lead the effort to remove theses dependencies,
because it bugged him that these services were "trapped" in Geronimo.
In response to the list below, I'd like to ask you if you understand
Maven 1? Maven 1 had no concept of "test" dependencies or "optional"
dependencies in Maven 2 termonology at the time we wrote most of the
poms for Geronimo. This means that either only test code is using
them or they are used by code that is only optionally loaded if the
dependent jar is present in the system. As we convert to Maven 2
over the next several months, you will seem many of these extra
dependencies fall away.
Basically, this is by no means an exaggeration.
-dain
On Feb 4, 2006, at 8:53 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Friday 03 February 2006 23:53, James Strachan wrote:
>
>> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
>> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
>> the transaction manager...
>
>
> IMHO, this is a vast exaggeration that is not entirely fair to
> make, and would
> like to counter with the dependencies list of the said project (see
> below)...
>
> Saying that TM is independent and having Geronimo's "system",
> "core", "j2ee"
> and "kernel" modules listed, is definately catching my attention
> and asking
> "What's your agenda, James?" for such misrepresentation. You could
> have
> high-lighted the true dependencies.
>
>
> <dependencies>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-system</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-core</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>geronimo</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-kernel</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec</artifactId>
> <version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>concurrent</groupId>
> <artifactId>concurrent</artifactId>
> <version>1.3.4</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-logging</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.4</version>
> <url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/</url>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>howl</groupId>
> <artifactId>howl-logger</artifactId>
> <version>0.1.11</version>
> <url>http://forge.objectweb.org/projects/howl</url>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>mx4j</groupId>
> <artifactId>mx4j</artifactId>
> <version>3.0.1</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>commons-jelly</groupId>
> <artifactId>commons-jelly-tags-velocity</artifactId>
> <version>1.0</version>
> </dependency>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>velocity</groupId>
> <artifactId>velocity</artifactId>
> <version>1.4</version>
> </dependency>
> </dependencies>
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Friday 03 February 2006 23:53, James Strachan wrote:
> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
> the transaction manager...
IMHO, this is a vast exaggeration that is not entirely fair to make, and would
like to counter with the dependencies list of the said project (see below)...
Saying that TM is independent and having Geronimo's "system", "core", "j2ee"
and "kernel" modules listed, is definately catching my attention and asking
"What's your agenda, James?" for such misrepresentation. You could have
high-lighted the true dependencies.
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-system</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-core</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-j2ee</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-kernel</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-jta_1.0.1B_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-ejb_2.1_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>geronimo-j2ee-connector_1.5_spec</artifactId>
<version>1.1-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>concurrent</groupId>
<artifactId>concurrent</artifactId>
<version>1.3.4</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>commons-logging</groupId>
<artifactId>commons-logging</artifactId>
<version>1.0.4</version>
<url>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging/</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>howl</groupId>
<artifactId>howl-logger</artifactId>
<version>0.1.11</version>
<url>http://forge.objectweb.org/projects/howl</url>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>mx4j</groupId>
<artifactId>mx4j</artifactId>
<version>3.0.1</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>commons-jelly</groupId>
<artifactId>commons-jelly-tags-velocity</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>velocity</groupId>
<artifactId>velocity</artifactId>
<version>1.4</version>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
Cheers
Niclas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
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:
>
> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
> the transaction manager...
>
> We use the same approach in ServiceMix; we make lots of small modular
> jars for the parts you need. e.g. here's the JBI component for
> working with Tuscany...
Thank you for the explanation and examples!
- --
#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+ODHZrNPMCpn3XdAQKO8gP8Cm0Z3aZ7kKhw0nfXpujDz1ACFv+AjGV/
DJ9Ff0HpN8LNmw63rrB7KVhLI0094tQUlOC+tO10sgDs39ykqEitnndz72h06Eh/
GLiK4LPs3DfMekjHO7LZKwS6v/r6WfU32p9DiaBTvjYtUg0qHb1mGRt0WKutb8Ug
ohimowLqMf8=
=+hnF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
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:
>
> The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
> download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
> the transaction manager...
>
> We use the same approach in ServiceMix; we make lots of small modular
> jars for the parts you need. e.g. here's the JBI component for
> working with Tuscany...
Thank you for the explanation and examples!
- --
#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+ODHZrNPMCpn3XdAQKO8gP8Cm0Z3aZ7kKhw0nfXpujDz1ACFv+AjGV/
DJ9Ff0HpN8LNmw63rrB7KVhLI0094tQUlOC+tO10sgDs39ykqEitnndz72h06Eh/
GLiK4LPs3DfMekjHO7LZKwS6v/r6WfU32p9DiaBTvjYtUg0qHb1mGRt0WKutb8Ug
ohimowLqMf8=
=+hnF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:38, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
>> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
>> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
>> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
>> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> You can download just the parts you want? Or do you have
> to download the whole thing and only *use* the parts you
> want? If the latter, can you throw away the parts you
> don't need, or do you need to have them around?
>
> As an example, is the TM a single jar, or part of another?
The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
the transaction manager...
http://cvs.apache.org/repository/geronimo/jars/geronimo-
transaction-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
We use the same approach in ServiceMix; we make lots of small modular
jars for the parts you need. e.g. here's the JBI component for
working with Tuscany...
http://svn.apache.org/repository/incubator-servicemix/jars/servicemix-
sca-3.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:38, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
>> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
>> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
>> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
>> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> You can download just the parts you want? Or do you have
> to download the whole thing and only *use* the parts you
> want? If the latter, can you throw away the parts you
> don't need, or do you need to have them around?
>
> As an example, is the TM a single jar, or part of another?
The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
the transaction manager...
http://cvs.apache.org/repository/geronimo/jars/geronimo-
transaction-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
We use the same approach in ServiceMix; we make lots of small modular
jars for the parts you need. e.g. here's the JBI component for
working with Tuscany...
http://svn.apache.org/repository/incubator-servicemix/jars/servicemix-
sca-3.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:38, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
>> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
>> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
>> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
>> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> You can download just the parts you want? Or do you have
> to download the whole thing and only *use* the parts you
> want? If the latter, can you throw away the parts you
> don't need, or do you need to have them around?
>
> As an example, is the TM a single jar, or part of another?
The TM is in a single download-able jar all by itself; so you can
download only what you need. e.g. here's the latest snapshot of just
the transaction manager...
http://cvs.apache.org/repository/geronimo/jars/geronimo-
transaction-1.1-SNAPSHOT.jar
We use the same approach in ServiceMix; we make lots of small modular
jars for the parts you need. e.g. here's the JBI component for
working with Tuscany...
http://svn.apache.org/repository/incubator-servicemix/jars/servicemix-
sca-3.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
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: [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:
>
> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
You can download just the parts you want? Or do you have
to download the whole thing and only *use* the parts you
want? If the latter, can you throw away the parts you
don't need, or do you need to have them around?
As an example, is the TM a single jar, or part of another?
- --
#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+N5AJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ+jgP/eeNzqA+6PnwVCxA5CK2E1dgik+0+fPWX
0D1+ge1Pu8X3yFtnhDRBaKGOV+QgLPi9ftLZq5s6x8VOpy90FD9yFNThDe7pQE0C
RQYNu1roEJyPhoD4v3cBnwVXrdaFscRtZM93cvABN3PebyB7B1stTbwx6uql4/vb
rjWSvUV81Zc=
=/73j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Just what do you define the community as? ws-folks don't count? what
mentor says does not count? existing Agila folks don't count? Looks
like the definition of community is everyone who says yes to you and
everyone else is not part of the community?
Part of the incubation process is to to generate interest, get people
involved, make sure there is wider participation. A proposal and
emails on the general@i are part of that process to get more people
involved. Why is there so much resistance to doing that?
When paul dropped in you asked him to work on Agila. Is this what you
mean by increasing community participation? Is this how you do it?
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
> >> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
> >> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
> >> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
> >> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
> >> have
> >> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
> >> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> > :
> >> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
> >> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
> >> good
> >> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
> >> sides
> >> and some who may like both objectives.
> >
> > An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> > couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> > this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> > be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
>
> Not at all.
>
> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
>
> Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
> container, the transaction manager and the other components together
> by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
> lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
> components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
> same benefit of community growth.
>
>
> > What
> > about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> > would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> > of which it is a part is released?
>
> I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
> possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
> different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
>
>
> > If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> > people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> > on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> > me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> > interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> > community despite a lack of interest in it.
> >
> > This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> > who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> > to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> > that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
>
> Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
> about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
> see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
> really :).
>
> But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
> orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
> PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
> that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
> only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
> folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
> I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
> knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
> PMC) decide.
>
> 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: [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:
>
> To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
> Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
> Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
> you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
> Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
You can download just the parts you want? Or do you have
to download the whole thing and only *use* the parts you
want? If the latter, can you throw away the parts you
don't need, or do you need to have them around?
As an example, is the TM a single jar, or part of another?
- --
#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+N5AJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ+jgP/eeNzqA+6PnwVCxA5CK2E1dgik+0+fPWX
0D1+ge1Pu8X3yFtnhDRBaKGOV+QgLPi9ftLZq5s6x8VOpy90FD9yFNThDe7pQE0C
RQYNu1roEJyPhoD4v3cBnwVXrdaFscRtZM93cvABN3PebyB7B1stTbwx6uql4/vb
rjWSvUV81Zc=
=/73j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
>> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
>> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
>> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
>> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
>> have
>> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
>> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> :
>> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
>> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
>> good
>> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
>> sides
>> and some who may like both objectives.
>
> An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
Not at all.
To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
container, the transaction manager and the other components together
by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
same benefit of community growth.
> What
> about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> of which it is a part is released?
I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
> If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> community despite a lack of interest in it.
>
> This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
really :).
But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
PMC) decide.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
>> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
>> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
>> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
>> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
>> have
>> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
>> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> :
>> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
>> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
>> good
>> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
>> sides
>> and some who may like both objectives.
>
> An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
Not at all.
To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
container, the transaction manager and the other components together
by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
same benefit of community growth.
> What
> about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> of which it is a part is released?
I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
> If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> community despite a lack of interest in it.
>
> This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
really :).
But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
PMC) decide.
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
>> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
>> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
>> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
>> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you
>> have
>> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
>> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
> :
>> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
>> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very
>> good
>> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both
>> sides
>> and some who may like both objectives.
>
> An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
> couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
> this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
> be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it?
Not at all.
To use an analogy from Geronimo. You can reuse the Transaction
Manager inside Geronimo by itself without anything else from
Geronimo. Everything developed within the Geronimo PMC is modular;
you can use what you like. Modularity and reuse is a given on all the
Geronimo projects I'm aware of (which is most of it).
Geronimo benefited greatly from one project to define the kernel, the
container, the transaction manager and the other components together
by one cohesive team - then running the TCKs on it all - than having
lots of little projects. I think the JBI community (container,
components, routers and orchestrators of componentes) can get the
same benefit of community growth.
> What
> about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
> would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
> of which it is a part is released?
I prefer frequent releases of everything in a project as often as
possible personally but I'm sure if there's a need we could release
different modules at different times. Lets let the community decide.
> If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
> people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
> on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
> me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
> interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
> community despite a lack of interest in it.
>
> This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
> who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
> to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
> that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
Folks can work on the transaction manager in Geronimo and not worry
about the rest of it (and thats quite a bit 'rest' :); Similarly I
see no real harm with anyone joining ServiceMix (we're nice folks
really :).
But if the community grows to a large enough size of only-
orchestration-engine-without-caring-about-JBI people, the Geronimo
PMC can always reconsider and consider splitting the projects up. But
that'd be a great problem to have; a large healthy community focussed
only on orchestration wishing to make its own way. Today we have only
folks interested in ServiceMix wanting to work on the code there - so
I'm hoping we can bootstrap the community there first - then who
knows, lets let the community (under the guidance of the Geronimo
PMC) decide.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
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
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have
> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
:
> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good
> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides
> and some who may like both objectives.
An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it? What
about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
of which it is a part is released?
If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
community despite a lack of interest in it.
This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
- --
#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+NxUJrNPMCpn3XdAQLsWgP/VWgCpIjhg5vD4oWxvUIbBkvi7kaPUQGU
HbYXstl0P0ixjPkQ8OCM5IyT5uZBhwt2tIMN9g4cRDhmMbrZda5myzX/4um6SP4v
xK2clPLSILmpCftilJcPS1YgLmCgq9U4Tp2LVJK5TtYejK6lLzIBqKtCnLTWmoN6
2Twfp/Ct5Uw=
=3LV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
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
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
> way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
> ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
> container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
> and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have
> a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
> EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
:
> We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
> good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good
> BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides
> and some who may like both objectives.
An interesting point. There is no reason people in the ServiceMix
couldn't also work on a BPEL project. But if we goes through with
this as proposed, and someone wants a BPEL engine, is it going to
be necessary to take all of ServiceMix along with it? What
about versioning? Is the idea that the BPEL bit within ServiceMix
would be versioned/released separately? Or only when the thing
of which it is a part is released?
If the code is of use to more that ServiceMix, and/or there are
people who'd like to work on it but aren't interested in working
on any part of what ServiceMix is now, then it makes sense to
me that it be a separate project. As proposed, anyone with an
interest only in the BPEL aspect would have to join the ServiceMix
community despite a lack of interest in it.
This is all hypothetical; I don't know if there *are* people
who'd want to work on it but not ServiceMix, and I have
to take on faith the remarks that there are other packages
that would like a BPEL engine without ServiceMix attached.
- --
#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+NxUJrNPMCpn3XdAQLsWgP/VWgCpIjhg5vD4oWxvUIbBkvi7kaPUQGU
HbYXstl0P0ixjPkQ8OCM5IyT5uZBhwt2tIMN9g4cRDhmMbrZda5myzX/4um6SP4v
xK2clPLSILmpCftilJcPS1YgLmCgq9U4Tp2LVJK5TtYejK6lLzIBqKtCnLTWmoN6
2Twfp/Ct5Uw=
=3LV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have
a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
Seriously James I've never seen anyone disagree (in any effective
manner) with you on the list(s). Why is that? Is it because all
decisions happen off-list and all that happens here is the love-fest
as Sanjiva described? Community is not about borg-like ok-ing of
proposals.
We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good
BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides
and some who may like both objectives.
Why can't we agree to make it work as a separate entity? If not at
least tell us what your *shopping list* contains as to what other JBI
components you are going to bring in by the time incubation is over?
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > There are 2 problems:
> > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
>
> The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
> its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
> JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
> you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
> and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
> components you did vote for?
>
>
> > I don't
> > like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
>
> Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
>
>
> > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> > 2.0"
> >
> > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
> the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
> want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
> container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
> tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> 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
>
>
--
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
"Why don't you join the Agila project then?" is not the right
attitude. we are trying to be constructive.
thanks,
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:45, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > James
> >
> > I'm sure you want a single strong community around JBI. But a BPEL
> > is a
> > specification that is completely independent of JBI and indeed of
> > Java.
>
> You're talking about the BPEL XML language; I'm talking about a Java
> based orchestration engine.
>
>
> > If you make the argument that everything that can be potentially
> > used as a
> > JBI component is part of ServiceMix then you pretty much include
> > every part
> > of the JBI stack.
>
> I'm not arguing for everything that can *potentially* be used as a
> JBI component, I'm saying everything that *should* be used as a JBI
> component within a JBI container (in this case to orchestrate other
> JBI components) should ideally be developed within the Apache JBI
> community.
>
>
> > A BPEL server is an excellent project for Apache. I for one am very
> > excited
> > about the possibility of engaging in that project .
>
> Why don't you join the Agila project then?
>
>
> > I'm very keen for Sybase
> > to donate this code. But you can make it integrate closely into
> > ServiceMix
> > without it being tightly coupled.
>
> Its not about coupling, its about what is the standards based
> container and component model for a Java based orchestration engine.
> Note that one of the whole points of JBI is that it defines a
> component model so that any JBI component can run in any JBI
> container such as ObjectWeb's Petals or Sun's OpenESB or any other
> commercial JBI container.
>
> 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
>
>
--
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
"Why don't you join the Agila project then?" is not the right
attitude. we are trying to be constructive.
thanks,
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:45, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > James
> >
> > I'm sure you want a single strong community around JBI. But a BPEL
> > is a
> > specification that is completely independent of JBI and indeed of
> > Java.
>
> You're talking about the BPEL XML language; I'm talking about a Java
> based orchestration engine.
>
>
> > If you make the argument that everything that can be potentially
> > used as a
> > JBI component is part of ServiceMix then you pretty much include
> > every part
> > of the JBI stack.
>
> I'm not arguing for everything that can *potentially* be used as a
> JBI component, I'm saying everything that *should* be used as a JBI
> component within a JBI container (in this case to orchestrate other
> JBI components) should ideally be developed within the Apache JBI
> community.
>
>
> > A BPEL server is an excellent project for Apache. I for one am very
> > excited
> > about the possibility of engaging in that project .
>
> Why don't you join the Agila project then?
>
>
> > I'm very keen for Sybase
> > to donate this code. But you can make it integrate closely into
> > ServiceMix
> > without it being tightly coupled.
>
> Its not about coupling, its about what is the standards based
> container and component model for a Java based orchestration engine.
> Note that one of the whole points of JBI is that it defines a
> component model so that any JBI component can run in any JBI
> container such as ObjectWeb's Petals or Sun's OpenESB or any other
> commercial JBI container.
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:45, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> James
>
> I'm sure you want a single strong community around JBI. But a BPEL
> is a
> specification that is completely independent of JBI and indeed of
> Java.
You're talking about the BPEL XML language; I'm talking about a Java
based orchestration engine.
> If you make the argument that everything that can be potentially
> used as a
> JBI component is part of ServiceMix then you pretty much include
> every part
> of the JBI stack.
I'm not arguing for everything that can *potentially* be used as a
JBI component, I'm saying everything that *should* be used as a JBI
component within a JBI container (in this case to orchestrate other
JBI components) should ideally be developed within the Apache JBI
community.
> A BPEL server is an excellent project for Apache. I for one am very
> excited
> about the possibility of engaging in that project .
Why don't you join the Agila project then?
> I'm very keen for Sybase
> to donate this code. But you can make it integrate closely into
> ServiceMix
> without it being tightly coupled.
Its not about coupling, its about what is the standards based
container and component model for a Java based orchestration engine.
Note that one of the whole points of JBI is that it defines a
component model so that any JBI component can run in any JBI
container such as ObjectWeb's Petals or Sun's OpenESB or any other
commercial JBI container.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:45, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> James
>
> I'm sure you want a single strong community around JBI. But a BPEL
> is a
> specification that is completely independent of JBI and indeed of
> Java.
You're talking about the BPEL XML language; I'm talking about a Java
based orchestration engine.
> If you make the argument that everything that can be potentially
> used as a
> JBI component is part of ServiceMix then you pretty much include
> every part
> of the JBI stack.
I'm not arguing for everything that can *potentially* be used as a
JBI component, I'm saying everything that *should* be used as a JBI
component within a JBI container (in this case to orchestrate other
JBI components) should ideally be developed within the Apache JBI
community.
> A BPEL server is an excellent project for Apache. I for one am very
> excited
> about the possibility of engaging in that project .
Why don't you join the Agila project then?
> I'm very keen for Sybase
> to donate this code. But you can make it integrate closely into
> ServiceMix
> without it being tightly coupled.
Its not about coupling, its about what is the standards based
container and component model for a Java based orchestration engine.
Note that one of the whole points of JBI is that it defines a
component model so that any JBI component can run in any JBI
container such as ObjectWeb's Petals or Sun's OpenESB or any other
commercial JBI container.
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Paul Fremantle <pz...@apache.org>.
James
I'm sure you want a single strong community around JBI. But a BPEL is a
specification that is completely independent of JBI and indeed of Java.
If you make the argument that everything that can be potentially used as a
JBI component is part of ServiceMix then you pretty much include every part
of the JBI stack.
A BPEL server is an excellent project for Apache. I for one am very excited
about the possibility of engaging in that project . I'm very keen for Sybase
to donate this code. But you can make it integrate closely into ServiceMix
without it being tightly coupled.
Paul
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > There are 2 problems:
> > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
>
> The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
> its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
> JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
> you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
> and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
> components you did vote for?
>
>
> > I don't
> > like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
>
> Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
>
>
> > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> > 2.0"
> >
> > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
> the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
> want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
> container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
> tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> 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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Then by all means go ahead with a proposal to the Geronimo PMC asking
to start a new incubation project for BPEL as you say that there is
enough people to work on it. Not a backdoor "patch" to ServiceMix.
BPEL can be used standalone and BPEL was not in scope of ServiceMix. A
BPEL JBI Component is not a problem at all. But a full BPEL
implementation is a problem.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
> projects within the Geronimo PMC.
>
> James
>
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> > Right now it's not.
> >
> > thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> >>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >>>> project.
> >>>
> >>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> >>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> >>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> >>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> >>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
> >>
> >> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> >> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> >> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> >> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> >> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> >> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> >> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> >> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> >> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> >> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Then by all means go ahead with a proposal to the Geronimo PMC asking
to start a new incubation project for BPEL as you say that there is
enough people to work on it. Not a backdoor "patch" to ServiceMix.
BPEL can be used standalone and BPEL was not in scope of ServiceMix. A
BPEL JBI Component is not a problem at all. But a full BPEL
implementation is a problem.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
> projects within the Geronimo PMC.
>
> James
>
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> > Right now it's not.
> >
> > thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> >>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >>>> project.
> >>>
> >>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> >>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> >>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> >>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> >>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
> >>
> >> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> >> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> >> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> >> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> >> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> >> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> >> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> >> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> >> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> >> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Then by all means go ahead with a proposal to the Geronimo PMC asking
to start a new incubation project for BPEL as you say that there is
enough people to work on it. Not a backdoor "patch" to ServiceMix.
BPEL can be used standalone and BPEL was not in scope of ServiceMix. A
BPEL JBI Component is not a problem at all. But a full BPEL
implementation is a problem.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
> projects within the Geronimo PMC.
>
> James
>
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> > Right now it's not.
> >
> > thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> >>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >>>> project.
> >>>
> >>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> >>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> >>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> >>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> >>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
> >>
> >> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> >> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> >> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> >> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> >> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> >> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> >> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> >> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> >> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> >> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
projects within the Geronimo PMC.
James
On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> Right now it's not.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>>>> project.
>>>
>>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
>>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
>>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
>>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
>>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>>
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
projects within the Geronimo PMC.
James
On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> Right now it's not.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>>>> project.
>>>
>>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
>>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
>>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
>>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
>>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>>
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
I was speaking with my Geronimo PMC hat on thinking in general about
projects within the Geronimo PMC.
James
On 3 Feb 2006, at 14:26, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
> Right now it's not.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
>>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>>>> project.
>>>
>>> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
>>> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
>>> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
>>> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
>>> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>>
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
>> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
>> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
>> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
>> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
>> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
>> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
>> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
Right now it's not.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >> project.
> >
> > So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> > and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> > We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> > JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> > and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
Right now it's not.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >> project.
> >
> > So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> > and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> > We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> > JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> > and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> 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
>
>
--
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
how does that make any sense?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Then start the BPEL project under Geronimo. *NOT* under ServiceMix.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:08, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> James Strachan wrote:
>>>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>>>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>>>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant.
>>> No, it is not worth looking at them, if the intent is to use
>>> them as precedents of a process some are finding objectionable.
>>> Saying, 'They did it so why can't we?' is not appropriate.
>> I guess I didn't explain myself well there at all Ken sorry. (I'm
>> full of cold :( ).
>> I was just trying to say I'd rather see large, successful communities
>> form first, then if need be parts of the project are split off if
>> they become so wildly successful by themselves. So I was trying to
>> show some examples of projects which maybe could have benefited from
>> starting inside a larger, less granular project/community first
>> rather than starting small and dwindling then being merged back
>> together again due to inactivity.
>>
>> e.g. both Geronimo and Jakarta Commons have a broad range of
>> components inside them - many of which are reusable by themselves -
>> in both cases the courser grained projects helped grow a larger more
>> diverse community IMHO.
>>
>> James
>> -------
>> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
>
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Let me jump in here and say that I have to agree w/ Dims, Noel, et al here.
We should be focusing on a good vendor experience not wrangling with new
and "improved" ways to extend the incubation process, i.e. incubating
under an incubating sub-project. To be frank, our new guests are
scratching their heads. The incubation process has been honed over the
years and is light but adequate.
Sybase has explicitly expressed a desire for their technology donation
to start in ServiceMix but I'm sure that Geronimo will do. I'll file
the requisite paperwork. Let's focus on the *technical* merits of the
donation. Let's move on.
Regards,
Alan
On 2/3/2006 7:53 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>Then start the BPEL project under Geronimo. *NOT* under ServiceMix.
>
>-- dims
>
>On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:08, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>James Strachan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>>>>and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>>>>WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No, it is not worth looking at them, if the intent is to use
>>>them as precedents of a process some are finding objectionable.
>>>Saying, 'They did it so why can't we?' is not appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>I guess I didn't explain myself well there at all Ken sorry. (I'm
>>full of cold :( ).
>>I was just trying to say I'd rather see large, successful communities
>>form first, then if need be parts of the project are split off if
>>they become so wildly successful by themselves. So I was trying to
>>show some examples of projects which maybe could have benefited from
>>starting inside a larger, less granular project/community first
>>rather than starting small and dwindling then being merged back
>>together again due to inactivity.
>>
>>e.g. both Geronimo and Jakarta Commons have a broad range of
>>components inside them - many of which are reusable by themselves -
>>in both cases the courser grained projects helped grow a larger more
>>diverse community IMHO.
>>
>>James
>>-------
>>http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>
>
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Then start the BPEL project under Geronimo. *NOT* under ServiceMix.
-- dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:08, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > James Strachan wrote:
> >>
> >> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> >> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> >> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant.
> >
> > No, it is not worth looking at them, if the intent is to use
> > them as precedents of a process some are finding objectionable.
> > Saying, 'They did it so why can't we?' is not appropriate.
>
> I guess I didn't explain myself well there at all Ken sorry. (I'm
> full of cold :( ).
> I was just trying to say I'd rather see large, successful communities
> form first, then if need be parts of the project are split off if
> they become so wildly successful by themselves. So I was trying to
> show some examples of projects which maybe could have benefited from
> starting inside a larger, less granular project/community first
> rather than starting small and dwindling then being merged back
> together again due to inactivity.
>
> e.g. both Geronimo and Jakarta Commons have a broad range of
> components inside them - many of which are reusable by themselves -
> in both cases the courser grained projects helped grow a larger more
> diverse community IMHO.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 15:08, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> James Strachan wrote:
>>
>> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
>> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
>> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant.
>
> No, it is not worth looking at them, if the intent is to use
> them as precedents of a process some are finding objectionable.
> Saying, 'They did it so why can't we?' is not appropriate.
I guess I didn't explain myself well there at all Ken sorry. (I'm
full of cold :( ).
I was just trying to say I'd rather see large, successful communities
form first, then if need be parts of the project are split off if
they become so wildly successful by themselves. So I was trying to
show some examples of projects which maybe could have benefited from
starting inside a larger, less granular project/community first
rather than starting small and dwindling then being merged back
together again due to inactivity.
e.g. both Geronimo and Jakarta Commons have a broad range of
components inside them - many of which are reusable by themselves -
in both cases the courser grained projects helped grow a larger more
diverse community IMHO.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
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:
>
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant.
No, it is not worth looking at them, if the intent is to use
them as precedents of a process some are finding objectionable.
Saying, 'They did it so why can't we?' is not appropriate.
- --
#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+Nx1ZrNPMCpn3XdAQIrfgP/S+k1/RDQqfCthNR5P2BLwctklAE7k/Df
SIg3p0xuvYN9A+631mo4DSLFIORNkV1s5/pmG61k64uvTeJ3TGLEySQ1zVu6vDJQ
TW5zwzE5XeOKVfjAjZbyWZJ+Hin81wr+/1DSD4ja609Q2ugxN21Qv7yHWvYwtD1p
nRH1D+Mwemg=
=rHW9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
you can make those decisions when ServiceMix is a TLP of its own.
Right now it's not.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> > On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
> >> project.
> >
> > So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> > and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> > We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> > JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> > and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
> and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
> WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
> projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
> creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
> are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
> inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
> granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
> then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
> becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>> project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have
a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
Seriously James I've never seen anyone disagree (in any effective
manner) with you on the list(s). Why is that? Is it because all
decisions happen off-list and all that happens here is the love-fest
as Sanjiva described? Community is not about borg-like ok-ing of
proposals.
We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good
BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides
and some who may like both objectives.
Why can't we agree to make it work as a separate entity? If not at
least tell us what your *shopping list* contains as to what other JBI
components you are going to bring in by the time incubation is over?
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > There are 2 problems:
> > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
>
> The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
> its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
> JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
> you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
> and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
> components you did vote for?
>
>
> > I don't
> > like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
>
> Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
>
>
> > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> > 2.0"
> >
> > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
> the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
> want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
> container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
> tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>> project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the
way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within
ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI
container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine
and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have
a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component
EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire?
Seriously James I've never seen anyone disagree (in any effective
manner) with you on the list(s). Why is that? Is it because all
decisions happen off-list and all that happens here is the love-fest
as Sanjiva described? Community is not about borg-like ok-ing of
proposals.
We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very
good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good
BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides
and some who may like both objectives.
Why can't we agree to make it work as a separate entity? If not at
least tell us what your *shopping list* contains as to what other JBI
components you are going to bring in by the time incubation is over?
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > There are 2 problems:
> > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
>
> The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
>
> its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
> JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
> you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
> and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
> components you did vote for?
>
>
> > I don't
> > like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
>
> Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
>
>
> > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> > 2.0"
> >
> > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
> the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
> want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
> container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
> tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
>
> 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
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:23, James Strachan wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate
>> project.
>
> So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code
> and the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project.
> We all want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the
> JBI container and JBI components live and are developed, documented
> and tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
Incidentally its worth looking at other projects at Apache like Agila
and various projects on http://ws.apache.org like EWS, Mirae, Muse,
WSRF, TSIK etc which are kinda quiet, some near dormant. Making
projects too small and too granular can sometimes harm the chances of
creating a vibrant community. Just as the some folks in the WS PMC
are starting to consider collapsing projects together due to
inactivity, I think we should stay open to the idea of creating less
granular projects that can build a thriving community to start with
then, if the community decides, split things off later if something
becomes so popular it deserves its own project.
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> There are 2 problems:
> - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
components you did vote for?
> I don't
> like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
> - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> 2.0"
>
> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> There are 2 problems:
> - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
components you did vote for?
> I don't
> like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
> - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> 2.0"
>
> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> James,
>
> There are 2 problems:
> - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
> of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix.
The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says...
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal
its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a
JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote
you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could
and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what
components you did vote for?
> I don't
> like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it
> - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
> way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
> "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
> 2.0"
>
> So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and
the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all
want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI
container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and
tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI.
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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
There are 2 problems:
- As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix. I don't
like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
- Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
"supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
2.0"
So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
Yes, of course ServiceMix can embed it and use it just like it does
XFire or Axis or XBean. No one is saying you can't distribute a BPEL
enabled ServiceMix. It deserves good attention and TLC, which Agila is
not getting, So a fresh start would enable more people to converge and
work on. So please *STOP* the vote and work on a proposal and post it.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > James Strachan wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>
> >>> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
> >>> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
> >>> and now at
> >>> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
> >>> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
> >>
> >> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
> >> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
> >
> > You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
> > text being voted on was:
> >
> > "accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
>
> The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
> community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
> to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
> thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
> the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
> there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
> community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
> made to leave the incubator.
>
>
> >>> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
> >>> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
> >>
> >> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
> >> Geronimo PMC to vote.
> >
> > That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
> > early in the morning here.
>
> :)
>
> > A package gets accepted as a podling,
> > and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
> > decides to add more to it?
>
> Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
> point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
> be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
> ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
> caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
>
>
> > Admittedly the podling itself isn't
> > allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
> > Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
> > an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
> > scrutiny.
>
> OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
> them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
> Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
> the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
>
>
> >>> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
> >>> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
> >>> running The Apache Way.
> >> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> >> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> >> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
> >
> > And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
> > podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
>
> My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
> project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
> Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
> much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
> Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
> least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
> community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
> incubation process and the Apache Way.
>
>
> > If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
> > closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
> > awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
> > attention should be paid to him.
>
> Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
> issue.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
There are 2 problems:
- As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix. I don't
like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
- Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
"supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
2.0"
So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
Yes, of course ServiceMix can embed it and use it just like it does
XFire or Axis or XBean. No one is saying you can't distribute a BPEL
enabled ServiceMix. It deserves good attention and TLC, which Agila is
not getting, So a fresh start would enable more people to converge and
work on. So please *STOP* the vote and work on a proposal and post it.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > James Strachan wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>
> >>> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
> >>> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
> >>> and now at
> >>> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
> >>> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
> >>
> >> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
> >> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
> >
> > You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
> > text being voted on was:
> >
> > "accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
>
> The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
> community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
> to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
> thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
> the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
> there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
> community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
> made to leave the incubator.
>
>
> >>> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
> >>> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
> >>
> >> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
> >> Geronimo PMC to vote.
> >
> > That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
> > early in the morning here.
>
> :)
>
> > A package gets accepted as a podling,
> > and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
> > decides to add more to it?
>
> Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
> point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
> be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
> ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
> caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
>
>
> > Admittedly the podling itself isn't
> > allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
> > Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
> > an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
> > scrutiny.
>
> OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
> them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
> Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
> the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
>
>
> >>> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
> >>> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
> >>> running The Apache Way.
> >> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> >> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> >> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
> >
> > And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
> > podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
>
> My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
> project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
> Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
> much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
> Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
> least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
> community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
> incubation process and the Apache Way.
>
>
> > If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
> > closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
> > awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
> > attention should be paid to him.
>
> Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
> issue.
>
> 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: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
James,
There are 2 problems:
- As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope
of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix. I don't
like what's happening and the way you are doing it.
- Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one
way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the
"supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL
2.0"
So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project.
Yes, of course ServiceMix can embed it and use it just like it does
XFire or Axis or XBean. No one is saying you can't distribute a BPEL
enabled ServiceMix. It deserves good attention and TLC, which Agila is
not getting, So a fresh start would enable more people to converge and
work on. So please *STOP* the vote and work on a proposal and post it.
thanks,
dims
On 2/3/06, James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > James Strachan wrote:
> >> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> >>
> >>> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
> >>> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
> >>> and now at
> >>> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
> >>> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
> >>
> >> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
> >> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
> >
> > You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
> > text being voted on was:
> >
> > "accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
>
> The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
> community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
> to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
> thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
> the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
> there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
> community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
> made to leave the incubator.
>
>
> >>> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
> >>> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
> >>
> >> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
> >> Geronimo PMC to vote.
> >
> > That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
> > early in the morning here.
>
> :)
>
> > A package gets accepted as a podling,
> > and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
> > decides to add more to it?
>
> Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
> point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
> be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
> ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
> caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
>
>
> > Admittedly the podling itself isn't
> > allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
> > Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
> > an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
> > scrutiny.
>
> OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
> them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
> Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
> the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
>
>
> >>> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
> >>> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
> >>> running The Apache Way.
> >> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> >> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> >> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
> >
> > And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
> > podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
>
> My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
> project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
> Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
> much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
> Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
> least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
> community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
> incubation process and the Apache Way.
>
>
> > If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
> > closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
> > awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
> > attention should be paid to him.
>
> Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
> issue.
>
> James
> -------
> http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
>>> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
>>> and now at
>>> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
>>> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
>>
>> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
>> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
>
> You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
> text being voted on was:
>
> "accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
made to leave the incubator.
>>> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
>>> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
>>
>> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
>> Geronimo PMC to vote.
>
> That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
> early in the morning here.
:)
> A package gets accepted as a podling,
> and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
> decides to add more to it?
Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
> Admittedly the podling itself isn't
> allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
> Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
> an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
> scrutiny.
OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
>>> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
>>> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
>>> running The Apache Way.
>> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
>> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
>> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
>
> And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
> podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
incubation process and the Apache Way.
> If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
> closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
> awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
> attention should be paid to him.
Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
issue.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 11:33, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> James Strachan wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
>>> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
>>> and now at
>>> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
>>> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
>>
>> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
>> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
>
> You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
> text being voted on was:
>
> "accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
The contributors want to donate their code to the ServiceMix
community and all indications are that the ServiceMix community want
to accept the code and want to work with the contributors; so I
thought it was right to seek approval for this course of action from
the sponsor PMC. Bear in mind we are still in the incubator anyway so
there is plenty of time for folks to review the code, watch the
community in action, get involved and participate before attempts are
made to leave the incubator.
>>> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
>>> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
>>
>> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
>> Geronimo PMC to vote.
>
> That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
> early in the morning here.
:)
> A package gets accepted as a podling,
> and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
> decides to add more to it?
Well no-one has decided yet, that's why we're voting ;) - but the
point of the vote was to ask the sponsor PMC to allow the podling to
be able to accept a code donation as well as canvassing the
ServiceMix community to see if they'd like to accept it. (Maybe this
caused some confusion having just 1 vote?)
> Admittedly the podling itself isn't
> allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
> Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
> an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
> scrutiny.
OK. But I thought it was fine for issues to come up in votes, for
them to be debated & addressed and then later for action to be taken?
Its certainly been my impression of how things tend to work on all
the apache projects i've been on - apologies if I'm mistaken.
>>> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
>>> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
>>> running The Apache Way.
>> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
>> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
>> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
>
> And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
> podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
My objection was more to that sentence - of labelling the ServiceMix
project as not following the Apache Way when the main issue in
Sanjiva's mail to me seems to be my handling of the vote. i.e. I'd
much rather people say "bad James, you're not acting in an Apache
Way" or "you really messed up that vote" than to make, what feels at
least, a little derogatory comment about the entire ServiceMix
community as a whole which has been working very hard to follow the
incubation process and the Apache Way.
> If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
> closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
> awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
> attention should be paid to him.
Absolutely; we're all paying attention to everyone's comment on this
issue.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
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:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>>Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
>>Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
>>and now at
>>Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
>>you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
>
> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
text being voted on was:
"accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
>>The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
>>a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
>
> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
> Geronimo PMC to vote.
That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
early in the morning here. A package gets accepted as a podling,
and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
decides to add more to it? Admittedly the podling itself isn't
allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
scrutiny.
>>The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
>>without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
>>running The Apache Way.
>
> Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions.
Again -- you don't use a vote to discuss or collect opinions.
Votes are primarily for decision-making, and this one
certainly was phrased that way.
> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
attention should be paid to him.
- --
#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+M/nJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ65AP+Nabfv2dmZPDEzWsycpaT+z8RTYSNDwx/
VEmeyRhicADWxjcJShwNKbsuRGq17tmfRoU2KETMUC2iWUyvgyuGiux5bkd6L6LT
RjGGCAzCLyIpDfa3EakOoTj3kS63ZGcrVq4zy8lpxL/oQmXWaSj9PInmai+SyI2E
WukqhVEqajY=
=KDor
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>> We're not sucking in another project. Its a contribution of code
>> only. How is this any different than has already happened on
>> Geronimo, Agila (twister), Harmony etc?
>
> Geronimo is not an incubating project and hence can bring more stuff in.
> The Agila/Twister merger was done thru the incubator (and is still
> ongoing and IMO unlikely to complete). Harmony- I'm not sure what you're
> referring to (I haven't followed it much).
In harmony we're bringing in donations from people who are contributing
to our primary mission, creating a fully working implementation of J2SE.
That means that implementations of both the VM and the class
libraries, and that is what is being donated and accepted.
geir
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi James,
> We're not sucking in another project. Its a contribution of code
> only. How is this any different than has already happened on
> Geronimo, Agila (twister), Harmony etc?
Geronimo is not an incubating project and hence can bring more stuff in.
The Agila/Twister merger was done thru the incubator (and is still
ongoing and IMO unlikely to complete). Harmony- I'm not sure what you're
referring to (I haven't followed it much).
> Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions. i
> don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
Indeed :) .. and IMO an incubating project should not be taking code
donations or doing I have asked for guidance from the incubator PMC to
make sure I'm not out of line .. if so I will profoundly apologize!
Sanjiva.
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the
ServiceMix project
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi James,
> We're not sucking in another project. Its a contribution of code
> only. How is this any different than has already happened on
> Geronimo, Agila (twister), Harmony etc?
Geronimo is not an incubating project and hence can bring more stuff in.
The Agila/Twister merger was done thru the incubator (and is still
ongoing and IMO unlikely to complete). Harmony- I'm not sure what you're
referring to (I haven't followed it much).
> Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions. i
> don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
Indeed :) .. and IMO an incubating project should not be taking code
donations or doing I have asked for guidance from the incubator PMC to
make sure I'm not out of line .. if so I will profoundly apologize!
Sanjiva.
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:
> On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>>Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
>>Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
>>and now at
>>Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
>>you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
>
> I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
> project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
You don't vote to get opinions or discussion. The actual
text being voted on was:
"accept the donation into the ServiceMix incubator project"
>>The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
>>a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
>
> I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
> Geronimo PMC to vote.
That's very convoluted to my mind, although it *is* currently
early in the morning here. A package gets accepted as a podling,
and then later the sponsor, a group external to the podling,
decides to add more to it? Admittedly the podling itself isn't
allowed to make the decision, but that's still an odd scenario.
Regardless of whether it has happened before, it's clearly
an exception rather than the rule, and therefore subject to
scrutiny.
>>The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
>>without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
>>running The Apache Way.
>
> Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions.
Again -- you don't use a vote to discuss or collect opinions.
Votes are primarily for decision-making, and this one
certainly was phrased that way.
> I don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
> this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
> mentor of the ServiceMix project.
And I find it particularly troubling that a mentor of the
podling in question is so strongly opposed to this tack.
If Sanjiva, a mentor of ServiceMix and therefore supposedly
closer to it than most.. if *he* thinks there's something
awkward about the way this is being handled, then I think
attention should be paid to him.
- --
#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+M/nJrNPMCpn3XdAQJ65AP+Nabfv2dmZPDEzWsycpaT+z8RTYSNDwx/
VEmeyRhicADWxjcJShwNKbsuRGq17tmfRoU2KETMUC2iWUyvgyuGiux5bkd6L6LT
RjGGCAzCLyIpDfa3EakOoTj3kS63ZGcrVq4zy8lpxL/oQmXWaSj9PInmai+SyI2E
WukqhVEqajY=
=KDor
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
> and now at
> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
> Also, how is it that a project under incubation can start sucking in
> more projects??
We're not sucking in another project. Its a contribution of code
only. How is this any different than has already happened on
Geronimo, Agila (twister), Harmony etc?
> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
Geronimo PMC to vote.
> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
> running The Apache Way.
Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions. i
don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
mentor of the ServiceMix project.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 3 Feb 2006, at 09:18, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Absolutely -1: The first time I ever saw any of this topic was
> Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:20:32 -0700 (Thu, 01:20 LKT)
> and now at
> Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:22:28 +0000 (22:22 LKT)
> you want to have a vote on it? You've GOT to be kidding.
I called a vote to see what people thought about it, particularly the
project sponsor, the geronimo PMC.
> Also, how is it that a project under incubation can start sucking in
> more projects??
We're not sucking in another project. Its a contribution of code
only. How is this any different than has already happened on
Geronimo, Agila (twister), Harmony etc?
> The idea of incubation is that the project is still not
> a part of Apache and hasn't quite become a meritocracy etc..
I understand that, which is why we are asking for the sponsor, the
Geronimo PMC to vote.
> The way this particular potential donation has been handled proves
> without a shadow of a doubt that this project (ServiceMix) is not
> running The Apache Way.
Huh? We've held a vote in open so folks can express their opinions. i
don't see how the project is not following the Apache Way. I find
this comment particularly puzzling as you voted yourself in to be a
mentor of the ServiceMix project.
James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/