On Oct 6, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Steve Vinoski wrote:
Sorry, Leo, but I don't see the point of your message below making
statements about CXF that are wholly untrue.
The point was to provide some insight into the differences between
different projects under incubation and how that leads to a different
kind of incubation taking place. Also note that, to begin with, "the
whole CXF thread" referred to a "whole" bunch of things that weren't
really all about CXF at all, and just as much about the "general
case". In this light, CXF is an unhappy example for a wider
discussion, for which I'm sorry, but it tends to be somewhat
difficult to avoid.
The fact that you consider what I said about CXF to be wholly untrue
is probably since you (a) misinterpreted my statements, (b) you
fundamentally disagree with my view on the SOA space and the
assertions I made about it, and (c) you're missing some incubation
terminology. I'm sorry, but it's probably not because I know nothing
about middleware or SOA or CXF or incubation.
First, CXF is corporate?
*sigh*. I said, "CXF was an attempt to start something by merging
something corporate with something open source".
That's incorrect, given that it's purely the combination of two
separate open source projects, Celtix and XFire. Celtix was
developed completely under the ObjectWeb community, and XFire was
developed under Codehaus.
When you look at the people (not the code), it is a combination of
people from two open source projects, and some additional people. The
project has quite a few committers who are paid to work on it. At
least one company whose representatives I spoke with (IONA) has told
me they plan to donate various other in-house things.
When you look at the project its stated goals, it is a combination of
the goals from two open source projects, and some additional goals
(the most obvious two being (a) becoming an Apache project and (b)
merging two big existing open source codebases).
Various corporations have business strategies that involve CXF. Some
of them but out corporate-oriented press releases or datasheets [1]
which are, ehm, "itchy" from an apache-style open source perspective
that say things like "Users who are interested in getting started can
download Celtix 1.0 today at ObjectWeb, and developers who want to
get involved in its next generation can contribute to the CeltiXfire
project in the Apache Incubator" which is *just* enough off-key to be
slighly annoying.
So, I do consider CXF a merge between something corporate and
something open source. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It is
just a difference (with wicket), and one that should be taken into
account (when considering the incubation policies and processes).
For example, one project I've helped mentor, Harmony, did much the
same thing -- it started with some donations from existing open
source projects, some corporate ones, and it has various people paid
by a few companies to work on it. Harmony still has a little bit of a
corporate feel to it at times, but we've worked hard to shed as much
of it as possible, hopefully to the point that the average CompSci
student can start contributing and feel happy about it. The point is
that this takes effort, effort which a project like wicket doesn't
have to expend.
And even *if* you disagree that there's "corporate elements" to take
into account here, I still suggest not calling CXF "purely the
combination of two [projects]".
Second, CXF is nothing but a bunch of buzzwords?
I didn't say CXF is nothing but a bunch of buzzwords. But contrast
"SCA integration" with "built-in support for HTTP sessions" and
you'll get the point.
I said "the stuff that CXF focusses on is still buzzword-ridden".
There's so many of them that they get their own acronyms. SOA (has
got to be my favorite), WS, ESB, etc. It's not CXF's fault (though
I'd love an ASF project that would just do away with them all and be
simple to understand to the rest of the world) this part of the
technology space is not so good at explaining itself as it could be.
I've personally been working for over 15 years now with numerous
people in various middleware communities on the technologies and
techniques that have led to what's going into CXF. Over the years
those communities have delivered a variety of commercial and open
source systems based on those techniques that run every single day,
often for years at a time, in production. I can assure you that
these approaches are quite far from being just buzzwords. You very
likely use such systems every single day, in fact, perhaps without
knowing it -- whenever you make a phone call or carry out a
financial transaction, for example. (Coincidentally, Mark Little,
one of the people directly affected by this whole issue, has done
tons of work in this area over the years as well.)
(which whole issue?). In any case, good for you guys. I didn't say
that all the middleware work you guys (or anyone) have done through
the ages is "just buzzwords", or that some of it doesn't "run every
single day, often for years at a time, in production".
But I'll happily stick to my assertion that there's too many of them
buzzy words (TLAs too, lots of TLAs), and that this is quite a
reasonable indicator some people use to not touch these things even
with a very long pole. It's not a beef with CXF, it's a beef with a
whole technology space, and it is something that causes various
problems for open source communities. For example, try explaining to
your favorite ASF board member the difference and similarities
between CX, XF, CXF, Axis1, Axis2, Synapse, Tuscany, and the-new-SOA-
related-project-proposed-for-incubation-two-months from now, in 2
minutes.
Lastly, CXF has strong champions like Dan D. and Dan K. working on
it, along with some strong committers. I have no doubt they'll
continue to work with their mentors to make CXF a success.
Sorry, champion in incubator context is a specific term referring to
a specific role taken on by a specific person - the original "old
fart" at the ASF that helps a fledgling project with the first few
phases of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] That project then alienating that very
person a few months down the road is what causes the worry, since in
a healthy situation that would be the last person you'd possibly
alienate.
It is not the best word (read mail archives for why we stuck with it
anyway), and it definitely isn't meant to imply other people are not
to be considered "champions" in their own right. When you read
"champion" on these mailing lists, think "specific incubator handyman
person that takes care of some specific things".
cheers,
Leo
PS: the top posting doesn't make untwining these threads any easier...
[1] - http://www.iona.com/info/aboutus/collateral/CeltiXfire-
datasheet.pdf
On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
Hey Martijn,
do keep sending these e-mails. Less replies doesn't mean that its
less valuable.
On Oct 3, 2006, at 9:38 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Just to pose an outsider view, being new to the ASF and not to
hijack
the discussion on the CFX/CeltiXFire, I would like to share my views
on the policy of the incubator.
I'm gonna respond in the generic rather than specific points.
Rest assured, the whole CXF thread doesn't apply to projects like
Wicket. Where wicket was a solid open source community already,
CXF was an attempt to start something by merging something
corporate with something open source, pour in some unknowns, and
then hope for the best.
Where wicket's technology space is essentially well-understood by
most incubator PMC members (and asf peeps world wide, most
likely), the stuff CXF focusses on is still buzzword-ridden and
thus well-avoided by many.
Do you really think a wicket contributor would've waited two
months for his account if the people around him would've been
happily committing code? Do you think you would've? I would guess
board@ would've known about it by then, if not slashdot...
...It is simply a world of difference. Which makes writing a
single, sane, understandable, clear, permanent, policy for both
(well, n, there's a new world every time there's a new project)
quite hard (I've never understood why we try, but that's another
subject). For example, where I'll happily go and weigh what wicket
contributors contributed to wicket before it came to apache
(especially if those contributors rub my nose in it), I'm not
gonna care a rat's ass what Joe Corporate Developer Who Is Unknown
To Google Or Koders.com contributed to a corporate codebase before
his company came to apache.
Bluntly, a project like Wicket starts at 90% "community clearance
done" (just some IRC things to convince people of ;) ), that other
project starts at -20%-100% depending on which company it came from.
In the end, this means you don't put your trust into the process.
You put your trust into the people that make that process work,
and into processes where what those people say and do (and vote)
matters above and beyond most (some of it is legal shtuff, can
vote all you like there, ain't gonna help) process description.
Which, getting back to CXF, is now getting me really worried,
since its champion and most active mentor resigned from his position.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
