Paul Fremantle wrote:
Actually I'm wrong
The correct wording (I think) is:
..establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation
and maintenance of open-source software for distribution at no charge
to the public, that simplifies the development, deployment and management
of distributed applications built as compositions of service components.
These components may be implemented with a range of technologies and
connected using a variety of communication protocols. This software will
implement relevant open standards including, but not limited to, the
SCA and SDO standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA member section."
Same question applies.
Yes, SDO is currently in the scope of Tuscany. As you have pointed out,
the Tuscany PPMC has adjusted the wording of this sentence a few times,
and it could be adjusted again before the next graduation proposal.
For example, it could say something like "SCA and associated technologies"
which would still allow Tuscany to do things related to the use of SDO
in the context of SCA.
I don't think there's any problem with the current arrangement of having
Tuscany's scope include implementations of both SCA and SDO. Neither do
I think there would be any problem with a slightly different scope in
which Tuscany SCA provides databinding support for an SDO implementation
(or implementations) that are developed in other open source projects.
Tuscany SCA currently does this for JAXB, JSON, Saxon, XMLBeans, etc.
The overriding consideration should be what's the best option for
creating and sustaining a healthy and diverse SDO community. This
proposal would increase the diversity of the Apache SDO community,
and put new SDO technical assets into open source that aren't there
today. These are good reasons in favour of accepting it. Conversely,
it is important for Tuscany to ensure that its current SDO community
isn't impacted by any change in Tuscany's scope, and this discussion
is currently under way on the tuscany-user list (see [1]).
One topic from the tuscany-user discussion that's worth exposing here
is whether the NNY project would be a "pure RI" with no extensions
beyond the spec, or a vehicle for innovation to extend the specs, as
both Tuscany SCA and SDO have been. My view is that it will need to
be at least some of the latter in order to build a sustainable
community of developers and users. This will create some challenges
given that one of the goals of the NNY project is to deliver the
official JCP RI.
Simon
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-user/200802.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Paul
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cesar
The Tuscany project is aiming to have the following charter:
charged with
the creation and maintenance of open-source software that
simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
applications and provides a managed service-oriented runtime
based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group,
for distribution at no charge to the public.
Are you saying that SDO falls out of that scope?
Paul
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:31 PM, Cezar Andrei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion SCA and SDO are two completely different technologies,
> even if they can be used together, they address different problems and
> as specifications they are developed separately.
>
> I think there are a lot of people looking only at SDO for their
> projects, and I'm sure there are others looking at SCA without SDO. I
> think having each community focus on their goals would help getting
> better organized, develop and independently graduate.
>
> Other than the technology/community point of view, the SDO code is not
> dependent on SCA code and as Ant Elder pointed out on Tuscany-user list
> (http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02505.html )
> the new infrastructure would seem a better fit.
>
> Cezar
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:50 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
> >
>
> > Cezar
> >
> > I don't think anyone has suggested this code is a fork from Tuscany,
> > but thank you for making this completely clear.
> >
> > Is there any reason you aren't willing to do this work under the
> > existing scope of the Tuscany Incubator project?
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
>
>
>
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities,
that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged,
and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this
message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
