You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-dev@axis.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> on 2002/12/11 16:32:26 UTC
Re: Web Services top-level project (was Re: [AXIS/WSIF] proposed
new WSIF home page URL)
Tom Jordahl wrote:
> I would think that each of the sub projects would have its own set of
> committers. I don't think I should have the rights to muck with the
> WSIF code just because I know what I am doing in Axis.
>
> Given that we expect the number of projects involving web services to
> only increase, I think it would make much more sense that each
> project has its own set of committers, mailing list, CVS tree, etc,
> etc.
>
> I see webservice.apache.org as more of an organizational grouping
> than a 'we are a bunch of people all working on every one of these
> projects'.
>
> I freely admit that there may be Apache organizational principals
> that govern this that I am not aware of....
It is not so much an organizational prinicipal(*) as an evolving
awareness of what works and what doesn't work.
Here's an observation to illustrate the point: Axis has grown rather
big, hasn't it? Inside Axis is WSDL2Java. I have commit access to this
code but Nirmal does not. Why do I have access? I guess the
presumption is that if I were to make a change it is likely to be
acceptable. If not, a test will likely detect the issue and/or I am
likely to support the code I wrote. And failing either of those things,
the change can always be backed out.
Does this apply to Nirmal? I would think so, particularly as his code
will likely become a customer.
We *could* go down the path where the code is partitioned up very finely
with individual access rights to each, but if history is any guide, the
likely result is duplication and invention of isolation layers.
What seems to work is if every community is defined as a separate top
level Apache project. If WSIF and Axis are separate communities, then
lets declare it so and move on. Otherwise, lets declare that and make
it so.
- Sam Ruby
(*) Actually Roy Fielding would disagree with me, as he has been
consistently advocating the direction we are now heading. Some of us
just take a little longer than others to catch on. ;-)
Re: Web Services top-level project (was Re: [AXIS/WSIF] proposed new WSIF home page URL)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
I agree. One community would be better.
-- dims
--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Sam Ruby" <ru...@apache.org> writes:
> [snip]
> >
> > We *could* go down the path where the code is partitioned up very finely
> > with individual access rights to each, but if history is any guide, the
> > likely result is duplication and invention of isolation layers.
>
> I agree; we're better off having one community of developers. Even
> in a single community, developers will tend to focus on their area
> of strength/interest; so the necessary separation occurs naturally.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://xml.apache.org/~dims/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Web Services top-level project (was Re: [AXIS/WSIF] proposed new WSIF home page URL)
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>.
"Sam Ruby" <ru...@apache.org> writes:
[snip]
>
> We *could* go down the path where the code is partitioned up very finely
> with individual access rights to each, but if history is any guide, the
> likely result is duplication and invention of isolation layers.
I agree; we're better off having one community of developers. Even
in a single community, developers will tend to focus on their area
of strength/interest; so the necessary separation occurs naturally.
Sanjiva.
Re: Web Services top-level project (was Re: [AXIS/WSIF] proposed new
WSIF home page URL)
Posted by Nirmal Mukhi <nm...@us.ibm.com>.
+1 for for webservices.apache.org and ws.apache.org as the umbrella for
all WS work in Apache.
+1 for a single set of committers - I think we can all be responsible
while at the same time promoting code sharing and interactions between
related communities.
Nirmal.
Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
Sent by: news <ne...@main.gmane.org>
12/11/2002 10:32 AM
Please respond to axis-dev
To: axis-dev@xml.apache.org
cc:
Subject: Re: Web Services top-level project (was Re:
[AXIS/WSIF] proposed new WSIF home page URL)
Tom Jordahl wrote:
> I would think that each of the sub projects would have its own set of
> committers. I don't think I should have the rights to muck with the
> WSIF code just because I know what I am doing in Axis.
>
> Given that we expect the number of projects involving web services to
> only increase, I think it would make much more sense that each
> project has its own set of committers, mailing list, CVS tree, etc,
> etc.
>
> I see webservice.apache.org as more of an organizational grouping
> than a 'we are a bunch of people all working on every one of these
> projects'.
>
> I freely admit that there may be Apache organizational principals
> that govern this that I am not aware of....
It is not so much an organizational prinicipal(*) as an evolving
awareness of what works and what doesn't work.
Here's an observation to illustrate the point: Axis has grown rather
big, hasn't it? Inside Axis is WSDL2Java. I have commit access to this
code but Nirmal does not. Why do I have access? I guess the
presumption is that if I were to make a change it is likely to be
acceptable. If not, a test will likely detect the issue and/or I am
likely to support the code I wrote. And failing either of those things,
the change can always be backed out.
Does this apply to Nirmal? I would think so, particularly as his code
will likely become a customer.
We *could* go down the path where the code is partitioned up very finely
with individual access rights to each, but if history is any guide, the
likely result is duplication and invention of isolation layers.
What seems to work is if every community is defined as a separate top
level Apache project. If WSIF and Axis are separate communities, then
lets declare it so and move on. Otherwise, lets declare that and make
it so.
- Sam Ruby
(*) Actually Roy Fielding would disagree with me, as he has been
consistently advocating the direction we are now heading. Some of us
just take a little longer than others to catch on. ;-)