Re: BPEL contribution from Sybase
On 14 Feb 2006, at 01:25, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dain Sundstrom wrote: I think ServiceMix is the perfect home for a BPEL engine. Every JBI implementation that I am aware of has and integrated orchestration engine exposed via the BPEL specification. If every JBI implementation has an integrated orchestration engine, then we should factor out the orchestration engine. Furthermore, as per the JBI Specification, "Java Business Integration JSR (JBI) extends J2EE and J2SE with business integration SPIs. These SPIs enable the creation of a Java business integration environment for specifications such as WSCI, BPEL4WS and the W3C Choreography Working Group." JBI is applicable outside the context of J2EE. Agreed So if ServiceMix is intended to be embedded exclusively in Geronimo (the subject of a whole other discussion), Its not. You can use ServiceMix inside Geronimo, J2EE or J2SE. JBI should be available separately. It is, inside the ServiceMix project. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RESULT] Release Apache Jackrabbit version 0.9-incubating
With the following votes, the Apache Jackrabbit 0.9-incubating release has been approved. Binding votes (Jackrabbit PPMC): +1 Jukka Zitting +1 Stefan Guggisberg +1 Dominique Pfister +1 Peeter Piegaze +1 Serge Huber +1 Marcel Reutegger +1 David Nuescheler +1 Roy Fielding (Incubator PMC) +1 Davanum Srinivas (Incubator PMC) +1 Noel J. Bergman (Incubator PMC) Non-binding votes: +1 Chandresh Turakhia +1 Bill Dudney Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
The Geronimo PMC needs to vote on sponsoring this. Before you do that, just to start the discussion : - Why would the Geronimo PMC sponsor this? - Isn't BPEL a bit far afield from J2EE, which is our charter as a PMC? - How about bringing it to Agila, which already has a good start on BPEL and workflow, and take the best from the Sybase contribution and the best from Twister and combine? Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. Please feel free to comment. Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork faxed in? Any other ASF committers want to jump in? We need some more mentors. Anyone? This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IP Clearance] geronimo-1478-xbean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: > I have committed the ip-clearance for the XBean donation to Geronimo: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi?rev=377477&view=rev > > If there are no objections, I will commit the code with history on > Wednesday February 15th. I object. -1. 1. Where's the proposal to the incubator? 2. Where's the discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3. Where's the notice that some project voted to sponsor this? 4. Where's the summary of that vote? 5. Do we have a clear read on whether we want foreign code committed to ASF repositories before IP vettage? [Noel?] I see that there was a large body of consent in the vote thread on [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also see that someone came in late to that discussion, apologised (sickness), and asked some questions about it (like, 'how does this fit into Geronimo?' [1]). Further, I see the responses to that question primarily being 'because we like it.' [2] I don't see any answer to the question 'how does this relate specifically to Geronimo?' So although the vote was correctly included, I don't feel 100% comfortable that we're ready to proceed. If Geir feels his questions have been answered satisfactorily, then my objection in that area is withdrawn. However, the five items on the list above are still outstanding and unanswered, so I'm -1 on this proceeding any farther until they're addressed. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg16954.html http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg16948.html [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg16963.html http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg16961.html http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg16967.html - -- #kenP-)} 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/Hb95rNPMCpn3XdAQIYKgQAwE8Ih009yDXAVyh8QlKImDBu9ZK1bZP4 Qd5J8we3YK23JGDozMqlKefpQNB3nElL9fK1Db7C5TrCB86wxu6aM2pdZ641VYcl jQj6wrSdhSFdBdJFUKovRwNaEaT8cE4T+ZEqHSb+VsOg2Ol0OkzCNE57G/64ockF /xchmV6mND4= =V6JT -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Incubator Marker [was Re: Ode Proposal]
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 15:35, Alan D. Cabrera wrote to dev@geronimo.apache.org, general@incubator.apache.org, servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org I thought ServiceMix was in the Incubator. How come the mailing list seems to indicate something else?? Is this common practice for Geronimo sponsored podlings? Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
On 14 Feb 2006, at 15:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allan, This proposal appears to be gear towards the web services/SOA community. Is support for orchestration of non-WS business processes considered out of scope for Ode? No - the code should be reusable for most orchestration needs; even in cases where there are no pointy brackets involved :). James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
Allan, This proposal appears to be gear towards the web services/SOA community. Is support for orchestration of non-WS business processes considered out of scope for Ode? Thanks, Ian It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not Ian D. Stewart Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure Phone: (614) 244-2564 Pager: (888) 260-0078 "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@geronimo.apache.org, general@incubator.apache.org, .com> servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org cc: 02/14/2006 02:35 Subject: Ode Proposal AM Please respond to dev Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. Please feel free to comment. Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork faxed in? Any other ASF committers want to jump in? We need some more mentors. Anyone? This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. Regards, Alan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
Great! I'm assuming the source won't be available for review unless/until Ode is accepted as an incubator poddling? Ian It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not Ian D. Stewart Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure Phone: (614) 244-2564 Pager: (888) 260-0078 James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@geronimo.apache.org mail.com>cc: general@incubator.apache.org, servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Ode Proposal 02/14/2006 10:10 AM Please respond to dev On 14 Feb 2006, at 15:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Allan, > > This proposal appears to be gear towards the web services/SOA > community. > Is support for orchestration of non-WS business processes > considered out of > scope for Ode? No - the code should be reusable for most orchestration needs; even in cases where there are no pointy brackets involved :). James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Incubator Marker [was Re: Ode Proposal]
It seems that it has been the common practive for incubating subprojects (not TLP) until this vote http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40incubator.apache.org/msg05956.html. Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 14 February 2006 15:35, Alan D. Cabrera wrote to dev@geronimo.apache.org, general@incubator.apache.org, servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org I thought ServiceMix was in the Incubator. How come the mailing list seems to indicate something else?? Is this common practice for Geronimo sponsored podlings? Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
Alan, the Sybase developers that will work on this project are Lance Waterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cory Harper [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Childs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jan-Hua Chu[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sandip Ghayal [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill On 2/14/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. > Please feel free to comment. > > Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that > wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork > faxed in? > > Any other ASF committers want to jump in? > > We need some more mentors. Anyone? > > This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start > the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > >
[Fwd: Re: Ode Proposal]
Was cross-posted originally and I didn't on my reply... Original Message Subject: Re: Ode Proposal Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:54:47 -0500 From: Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dev@geronimo.apache.org References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wasn't it offered already to ServiceMix? I mean, people already voted on accepting the code, so I assume it's available somewhere... geir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great! I'm assuming the source won't be available for review unless/until Ode is accepted as an incubator poddling? Ian It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not Ian D. Stewart Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure Phone: (614) 244-2564 Pager: (888) 260-0078 James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: dev@geronimo.apache.org mail.com>cc: general@incubator.apache.org, servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Ode Proposal 02/14/2006 10:10 AM Please respond to dev On 14 Feb 2006, at 15:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allan, This proposal appears to be gear towards the web services/SOA community. Is support for orchestration of non-WS business processes considered out of scope for Ode? No - the code should be reusable for most orchestration needs; even in cases where there are no pointy brackets involved :). James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Flood wrote: > The source can be found here: ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/ - From one of the .java files: > * Confidential property of Sybase, Inc. > * > * Copyright 1987 - 2006. > * > * Sybase, Inc. All rights reserved. > * Unpublished rights reserved under U.S. copyright laws. > * > * This software contains confidential and trade secret information > * of Sybase, Inc. Hmm. - From the note James Strachan forwarded to servicemix-dev here: http://www.mail-archive.com/servicemix-dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg00030.html it appears that the current tarball is 'currently licensed under a Sybase evaluation license.' Before proceeding, I'd like to know what the terms of that evaluation licence are. Can you provide a pointer to a copy? Is there one in the tarball? - -- #kenP-)} 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/IHOZrNPMCpn3XdAQLLhAP/QC649wEE6miMVqZTedgkg8he8HxLp8zE jmQLbGg5IzK2O9M/xiNJ8lokpYVMvCjCsqq0JcdocM4aNufZWlsFEcKNwA38ggRP 2sKMRyvv+ZA0pDpuCuCf4pjxU90peira+L1YtD5DtM1CreMS63TvNQT69Lzm8RCn mS3qgvVblr8= =FPB6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
The license is in the tarball. I've also put it at: ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/ -cory On 2/14/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bill Flood wrote: > > The source can be found here: ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/ > > - From one of the .java files: > > > * Confidential property of Sybase, Inc. > > * > > * Copyright 1987 - 2006. > > * > > * Sybase, Inc. All rights reserved. > > * Unpublished rights reserved under U.S. copyright laws. > > * > > * This software contains confidential and trade secret information > > * of Sybase, Inc. > > Hmm. > > - From the note James Strachan forwarded to servicemix-dev here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/servicemix-dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg00030.html > it appears that the current tarball is 'currently licensed > under a Sybase evaluation license.' > > Before proceeding, I'd like to know what the terms of > that evaluation licence are. Can you provide a pointer > to a copy? Is there one in the tarball? > - -- > #kenP-)} > > 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/IHOZrNPMCpn3XdAQLLhAP/QC649wEE6miMVqZTedgkg8he8HxLp8zE > jmQLbGg5IzK2O9M/xiNJ8lokpYVMvCjCsqq0JcdocM4aNufZWlsFEcKNwA38ggRP > 2sKMRyvv+ZA0pDpuCuCf4pjxU90peira+L1YtD5DtM1CreMS63TvNQT69Lzm8RCn > mS3qgvVblr8= > =FPB6 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
The license is in the tarball and/or you can see it directly at ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/SourceCodeEvaluationAgreement.txtwithout dowloading the tarball. On 2/14/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bill Flood wrote: > > The source can be found here: > ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/ > > - From one of the .java files: > > > * Confidential property of Sybase, Inc. > > * > > * Copyright 1987 - 2006. > > * > > * Sybase, Inc. All rights reserved. > > * Unpublished rights reserved under U.S. copyright laws. > > * > > * This software contains confidential and trade secret information > > * of Sybase, Inc. > > Hmm. > > - From the note James Strachan forwarded to servicemix-dev here: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/servicemix-dev%40geronimo.apache.org/msg00030.html > it appears that the current tarball is 'currently licensed > under a Sybase evaluation license.' > > Before proceeding, I'd like to know what the terms of > that evaluation licence are. Can you provide a pointer > to a copy? Is there one in the tarball? > - -- > #kenP-)} > > 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/IHOZrNPMCpn3XdAQLLhAP/QC649wEE6miMVqZTedgkg8he8HxLp8zE > jmQLbGg5IzK2O9M/xiNJ8lokpYVMvCjCsqq0JcdocM4aNufZWlsFEcKNwA38ggRP > 2sKMRyvv+ZA0pDpuCuCf4pjxU90peira+L1YtD5DtM1CreMS63TvNQT69Lzm8RCn > mS3qgvVblr8= > =FPB6 > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
Re: Ode Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bill Flood wrote: > The license is in the tarball and/or you can see it directly at > ftp://ftp.sybase.com/pub/incoming/wcss/bpe/SourceCodeEvaluationAgreement.txt > without dowloading the tarball. Thanks, Bill, Cory! - -- #kenP-)} 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/IO4JrNPMCpn3XdAQKw6gQAwj6I0QdVPxhd4ymTlMa3ExqPI09LM+oo +CJA10bLYwo9JJi2ErbWb+qeSUYEwdT0ElRBvG5vLMnOfrOTs1yuBTHbSrZb0/Lf Dyl2UHBwzSTTPfMstH8aSkrNRqbymw19+X6cE3Yotbte3WZ+boE97dbp3R+jFX3T NKYHgroDoI0= =9Zuk -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BPEL contribution from Sybase
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:40:47PM -0800, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
I've heard nothing to provide a reason for not bringing in the
contribution
as a standalone podling, which ServiceMix and others can consume.
This would be in accord with Ken and Mads.
I really detest it when people try to flip the burden of proof. The
donator wants to put the code into ServiceMix and ServiceMix wants to
work on it. I think the burden of proof is on you. Unless you come
up with a BIG reason that this donation must be stopped, otherwise I
see no reason to not proceed with the IP checklist.
The IP checklist is the same either way. There is no "burden of proof"
with respect to that. The "proof" is actually more about "expected
outcome" and around how we believe the ASF community will end up
managing the resulting codebase.
IMO, what is happening here is that a number of people are observing,
for all intents and purposes, a turf battle over a codebase. That is
the antithesis of the ASF community model. This implies there are two
problems: the battle, and the people (who see "defending turf" as okay
behavior).
The solution to erasing those turf lines is to put *everybody* into
the same pool (the BPEL podling) and to put *all* projects outside of
that pool (no special consideration for Geronimo, WS, or whoever).
The more people play turf battles ("go into the service-mix turf"),
the worse the whole BPEL situation looks, and the more important it is
to stamp it out right here and now. And that is what the Incubator is
all about. Erase the lines and create a community that can work on
something with a cooperative atmosphere.
Good point.
-dain
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
FYI, I sent an offline reply to Bill. On 2/14/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dims, > > We heard your plea and have moved the proposal through the incubator as you > suggested. At this point, we are looking for supporters. From the energy > you put behind your posting, we are all hoping you will also be committed to > helping us drive this forward. > > We are also reaching out to the Agila folks and anyone else who wishes to > get involved. > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal > > Best, > > Bill > > > On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *IF* that is the objective, then the correct way is to follow the > > Apache Incubator process(es) draw up a proposal, name *ALL* the > > committers in servicemix who are willing to contribute, add your own > > team names, post the proposal to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. > > Ask for more people to join, Proactively invite other folks (from > > Apache and outside Apache as well) to join, seek active support of > > exising Apache folks who may be interested in joining a BPEL > > implementation. For god's sake just check the list of people who wrote > > the original BPEL spec and compare it to the people who work at Apache > > on web services related stuff and u will see what i mean. > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The dependency on Axis should be removed. It's the result of a couple > lines > > > of dead code. BPEL 2.0 is an objective. > > > > > > The discussion over where the contribution lands is one of the most > > > important aspects of the process. Too narrow a scope and the project > could > > > fail to get critical mass, too wide and folks are worried about the > kitchen > > > sink. If we can find the right balance we will be well served. > > > > > > We are not hardwired to any one particular approach and welcome > involvement > > > from all corners. The ServiceMix approach has a few positives - by in > large > > > they seem to like our contribution and they have critical mass. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > I was determined to stay of this, but alas! i could resist asking > this: > > > > > > > > Would you be ok to having a stand alone project with committers from > > > > servicemix, your team, people from other backgrounds (could be > > > > existing ws committers) working on this code base, bring it up to say > > > > BPEL 2.0 from BPEL1.1, upgrade it to say Axis2 from Axis 1.3 > > > > etc.etc...OR are u insisting that this code has to go into servicemix > > > > and nowhere else... > > > > > > > > If it is the latter, why? If it is the former, why is there so much > > > resistance? > > > > > > > > As they say, i'll take your answers off the air. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > dims > > > > > > > > On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Dims, I'll take Cory off the hook since he was acting in good faith > on > > > > > behalf of Sybase :-). > > > > > > > > > > As we are learning, there are a variety of ways to work within the > > > Apache > > > > > process as long as the community is supportive. From the Sybase > > > > > perspective, we are interested in working with a vibrant community > in a > > > > > meaningful way that balances the needs of the community with that of > our > > > > > own. > > > > > > > > > > when we first started thinking about the open source path, we looked > at > > > > > Agila and communicated with the developers. While the Agila > developers > > > were > > > > > quite helpful, the project was not open to our contribution and our > > > > > assessment was that their existing code line would take substantial > work > > > to > > > > > bring it up to where we thought we already were. > > > > > > > > > > When we looked at ServiceMix, we found a mature community that not > only > > > > > appeared open to a contribution such as ours but one which would > help us > > > > > establish a good affinity with the ESB. The Sybase folks working on > > > this > > > > > code line will continue to vigorously support the orchestration > > > component > > > > > and provide help in adjacent areas related to SCA. > > > > > > > > > > At this point, we feel comfortable in our contribution to the > ServiceMix > > > > > project based on the positive uptake. Under the rules of > meritocracy, > > > we > > > > > will work to ensure that the interfaces remain clean and the build > > > granular > > > > > enough to be reused and hope to work with you in the future. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a > > > business > > > > > process engine into the ServiceMix project) > > > > > > Sent: 02 Feb '06 21:12 > > > > > > > > > > > > Cory, > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Dims, We heard your plea and have moved the proposal through the incubator as you suggested. At this point, we are looking for supporters. From the energy you put behind your posting, we are all hoping you will also be committed to helping us drive this forward. We are also reaching out to the Agila folks and anyone else who wishes to get involved. http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal Best, Bill On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *IF* that is the objective, then the correct way is to follow the > Apache Incubator process(es) draw up a proposal, name *ALL* the > committers in servicemix who are willing to contribute, add your own > team names, post the proposal to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. > Ask for more people to join, Proactively invite other folks (from > Apache and outside Apache as well) to join, seek active support of > exising Apache folks who may be interested in joining a BPEL > implementation. For god's sake just check the list of people who wrote > the original BPEL spec and compare it to the people who work at Apache > on web services related stuff and u will see what i mean. > > thanks, > dims > > On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The dependency on Axis should be removed. It's the result of a couple > lines > > of dead code. BPEL 2.0 is an objective. > > > > The discussion over where the contribution lands is one of the most > > important aspects of the process. Too narrow a scope and the project > could > > fail to get critical mass, too wide and folks are worried about the > kitchen > > sink. If we can find the right balance we will be well served. > > > > We are not hardwired to any one particular approach and welcome > involvement > > from all corners. The ServiceMix approach has a few positives - by in > large > > they seem to like our contribution and they have critical mass. > > > > > > > > On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > I was determined to stay of this, but alas! i could resist asking > this: > > > > > > Would you be ok to having a stand alone project with committers from > > > servicemix, your team, people from other backgrounds (could be > > > existing ws committers) working on this code base, bring it up to say > > > BPEL 2.0 from BPEL1.1, upgrade it to say Axis2 from Axis 1.3 > > > etc.etc...OR are u insisting that this code has to go into servicemix > > > and nowhere else... > > > > > > If it is the latter, why? If it is the former, why is there so much > > resistance? > > > > > > As they say, i'll take your answers off the air. > > > > > > thanks, > > > dims > > > > > > On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dims, I'll take Cory off the hook since he was acting in good faith > on > > > > behalf of Sybase :-). > > > > > > > > As we are learning, there are a variety of ways to work within the > > Apache > > > > process as long as the community is supportive. From the Sybase > > > > perspective, we are interested in working with a vibrant community > in a > > > > meaningful way that balances the needs of the community with that of > our > > > > own. > > > > > > > > when we first started thinking about the open source path, we looked > at > > > > Agila and communicated with the developers. While the Agila > developers > > were > > > > quite helpful, the project was not open to our contribution and our > > > > assessment was that their existing code line would take substantial > work > > to > > > > bring it up to where we thought we already were. > > > > > > > > When we looked at ServiceMix, we found a mature community that not > only > > > > appeared open to a contribution such as ours but one which would > help us > > > > establish a good affinity with the ESB. The Sybase folks working on > > > this > > > > code line will continue to vigorously support the orchestration > > component > > > > and provide help in adjacent areas related to SCA. > > > > > > > > At this point, we feel comfortable in our contribution to the > ServiceMix > > > > project based on the positive uptake. Under the rules of > meritocracy, > > we > > > > will work to ensure that the interfaces remain clean and the build > > granular > > > > enough to be reused and hope to work with you in the future. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > > > > From: Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a > > business > > > > process engine into the ServiceMix project) > > > > > Sent: 02 Feb '06 21:12 > > > > > > > > > > Cory, > > > > > > > > > > Could you please get James' help and draft a complete proposal? > > > > > > > > > > Please see > > > > > > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=incubator+proposal+site%3Awiki.apache.org&btnG=Search > > > > > > for a list of proposals, their format and their content. > > > > > > > > > > Once
Re: Ode Proposal
Alan, I would like to throw my name in the hat and become actively involved. Bill Flood Sybase [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 2/14/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. Here's the proposal http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal. > Please feel free to comment. > > Bill Flood, can you provide us with the list of Sybase developers that > wish to work on this project? Can you get the Software Grant paperwork > faxed in? > > Any other ASF committers want to jump in? > > We need some more mentors. Anyone? > > This is not meant to stop discussions about this donation, just to start > the bureaucratic machinery while they take place. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > >
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Why not just bring into Agila and work on it in there? Bill Flood wrote: Dims, We heard your plea and have moved the proposal through the incubator as you suggested. At this point, we are looking for supporters. From the energy you put behind your posting, we are all hoping you will also be committed to helping us drive this forward. We are also reaching out to the Agila folks and anyone else who wishes to get involved. http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal Best, Bill On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *IF* that is the objective, then the correct way is to follow the Apache Incubator process(es) draw up a proposal, name *ALL* the committers in servicemix who are willing to contribute, add your own team names, post the proposal to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. Ask for more people to join, Proactively invite other folks (from Apache and outside Apache as well) to join, seek active support of exising Apache folks who may be interested in joining a BPEL implementation. For god's sake just check the list of people who wrote the original BPEL spec and compare it to the people who work at Apache on web services related stuff and u will see what i mean. thanks, dims On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The dependency on Axis should be removed. It's the result of a couple lines of dead code. BPEL 2.0 is an objective. The discussion over where the contribution lands is one of the most important aspects of the process. Too narrow a scope and the project could fail to get critical mass, too wide and folks are worried about the kitchen sink. If we can find the right balance we will be well served. We are not hardwired to any one particular approach and welcome involvement from all corners. The ServiceMix approach has a few positives - by in large they seem to like our contribution and they have critical mass. On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: I was determined to stay of this, but alas! i could resist asking this: Would you be ok to having a stand alone project with committers from servicemix, your team, people from other backgrounds (could be existing ws committers) working on this code base, bring it up to say BPEL 2.0 from BPEL1.1, upgrade it to say Axis2 from Axis 1.3 etc.etc...OR are u insisting that this code has to go into servicemix and nowhere else... If it is the latter, why? If it is the former, why is there so much resistance? As they say, i'll take your answers off the air. thanks, dims On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dims, I'll take Cory off the hook since he was acting in good faith on behalf of Sybase :-). As we are learning, there are a variety of ways to work within the Apache process as long as the community is supportive. From the Sybase perspective, we are interested in working with a vibrant community in a meaningful way that balances the needs of the community with that of our own. when we first started thinking about the open source path, we looked at Agila and communicated with the developers. While the Agila developers were quite helpful, the project was not open to our contribution and our assessment was that their existing code line would take substantial work to bring it up to where we thought we already were. When we looked at ServiceMix, we found a mature community that not only appeared open to a contribution such as ours but one which would help us establish a good affinity with the ESB. The Sybase folks working on this code line will continue to vigorously support the orchestration component and provide help in adjacent areas related to SCA. At this point, we feel comfortable in our contribution to the ServiceMix project based on the positive uptake. Under the rules of meritocracy, we will work to ensure that the interfaces remain clean and the build granular enough to be reused and hope to work with you in the future. Best Regards, Bill ---Original Message--- From: Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project) Sent: 02 Feb '06 21:12 Cory, Could you please get James' help and draft a complete proposal? Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=incubator+proposal+site%3Awiki.apache.org&btnG=Search for a list of proposals, their format and their content. Once the proposal is ready, please post it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, please take a peek at the documentation on the http://incubator.apache.org/ site especially w.r.t to the incubation process, what to expect and steps involved. thanks, dims On 2/2/06, cory < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > BPEL 1.1 is supported. The code works with Axis 1.3. > > Sybase wants this code to be successful within the community and is > going to work to support it. > > Cheers, > > -cory > > On 2/2/06, Dava
Re: [IP Clearance] geronimo-1478-xbean
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > I object. -1. > > 1. Where's the proposal to the incubator? > 2. Where's the discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3. Where's the notice that some project voted to sponsor this? > 4. Where's the summary of that vote? > 5. Do we have a clear read on whether we want foreign code >committed to ASF repositories before IP vettage? [Noel?] My bad; I was confused and thinking XBean was coming in as a podling and not as a direct import to Geronimo. So my objections were ill-founded and should be ignored, particularly since I retract them with an apology. :-P And the last point there.. the IP clearance document *is* the vettage. D'oh! Thanks to Dain for gently pointing out my error. - -- #kenP-)} 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/IsWprNPMCpn3XdAQLeRQQArAXQMyjg7tnZh+L1c+OAWh6F/wv7TyA8 YHexGomyNqSIp19PZoY+3wsaLuNOJvIucKkxa86NmwP+TL9p1zmtSuTpZ/ybYlQv CpnlVAjpBNIxCjj426MNC+aXtoKIw/cIV7HKfDTR8w5U0tPg97bQnlkKVhkvMjiA U89MAXBhYss= =Ogjr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they had and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator project. We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be any uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in and provide coding help on what they already had. I was a little mystified. Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability so we passed. Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in Apache thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result of our inherent subjectivity I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there was disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the previous conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that the Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part of that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something forward. Bill On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why not just bring into Agila and work on it in there? > > Bill Flood wrote: > > Dims, > > > > We heard your plea and have moved the proposal through the incubator as > you > > suggested. At this point, we are looking for supporters. From the > energy > > you put behind your posting, we are all hoping you will also be > committed to > > helping us drive this forward. > > > > We are also reaching out to the Agila folks and anyone else who wishes > to > > get involved. > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OdeProposal > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> *IF* that is the objective, then the correct way is to follow the > >> Apache Incubator process(es) draw up a proposal, name *ALL* the > >> committers in servicemix who are willing to contribute, add your own > >> team names, post the proposal to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. > >> Ask for more people to join, Proactively invite other folks (from > >> Apache and outside Apache as well) to join, seek active support of > >> exising Apache folks who may be interested in joining a BPEL > >> implementation. For god's sake just check the list of people who wrote > >> the original BPEL spec and compare it to the people who work at Apache > >> on web services related stuff and u will see what i mean. > >> > >> thanks, > >> dims > >> > >> On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> The dependency on Axis should be removed. It's the result of a couple > >> lines > >>> of dead code. BPEL 2.0 is an objective. > >>> > >>> The discussion over where the contribution lands is one of the most > >>> important aspects of the process. Too narrow a scope and the project > >> could > >>> fail to get critical mass, too wide and folks are worried about the > >> kitchen > >>> sink. If we can find the right balance we will be well served. > >>> > >>> We are not hardwired to any one particular approach and welcome > >> involvement > >>> from all corners. The ServiceMix approach has a few positives - by in > >> large > >>> they seem to like our contribution and they have critical mass. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/3/06, Davanum Srinivas < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > I was determined to stay of this, but alas! i could resist asking > >> this: > Would you be ok to having a stand alone project with committers from > servicemix, your team, people from other backgrounds (could be > existing ws committers) working on this code base, bring it up to say > BPEL 2.0 from BPEL1.1, upgrade it to say Axis2 from Axis 1.3 > etc.etc...OR are u insisting that this code has to go into servicemix > and nowhere else... > > If it is the latter, why? If it is the former, why is there so much > >>> resistance? > As they say, i'll take your answers off the air. > > thanks, > dims > > On 2/3/06, Bill Flood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dims, I'll take Cory off the hook since he was acting in good faith > >> on > > behalf of Sybase :-). > > > > As we are learning, there are a variety of ways to work within the > >>> Apache > > process as long as the community is supportive. From the Sybase > > perspective, we are interested in working with a vibrant community > >> in a > > meaningful way that balances the needs of the community with that of > >> our > > own. > > > > when we first started thinking about the open source path, we looked > >> at > > Agila and communicated with the developers. While the Agila > >> developers > >>> were > > quite helpful, the project was not open to our contribution and our > > assessment was that their existing code line would take substantial > >> work > >
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Bill Flood wrote: Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they had and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator project. We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be any uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in and provide coding help on what they already had. I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and wouldn't want to just drop them. I was a little mystified. Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability so we passed. Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in Apache thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result of our inherent subjectivity I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there was disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the previous conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that the Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part of that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something forward. How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with BPEL. Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would entail, actually...) Would you be interested in that? geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
I'm open to what works best. I think the proposal for Ode is in essence a fresh starting point for a community. Sybase just happened to submit some code, which may or may not be accepted and that we thought was passable. In the end, the community has the last say so we welcome that type of open discussion. On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bill Flood wrote: > > Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they > had > > and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator > > project. > > > > We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be > any > > uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in > and > > provide coding help on what they already had. > > I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did > have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. > > I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They > already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they > stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and > wouldn't want to just drop them. > > > I was a little mystified. > > Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed > > counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability > so we > > passed. > > > > Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in > Apache > > thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result > of > > our inherent subjectivity > > > > I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there > was > > disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the > previous > > conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that > the > > Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part > of > > that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about > > ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something > > forward. > > How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are > interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL > that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of > anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? > > In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS > projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with > BPEL. > > Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the > community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would > entail, actually...) > > Would you be interested in that? > > geir > > >
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
As one of the Sybase BPEL developers, this certainly sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps we can start a discussion around what the "bake off" criteria will look like ( i.e. what BPEL constructs are fully/half/not supported, what set of unit tests should be supported, etc ... ). As an example; in looking through the Agila code ( which could have rendered faulty assumptions ) it appears that the BPEL "Scope" construct is not currently supported. I rate "Scope" as quite important to have in a BPEL implementation and its not a simple thing to implement. Likewise, I am sure there are criteria that the Sybase donated engine does not fully measure against. Lance On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Bill Flood wrote: > > Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they > had > > and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator > > project. > > > > We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be > any > > uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in > and > > provide coding help on what they already had. > > I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did > have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. > > I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They > already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they > stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and > wouldn't want to just drop them. > > > I was a little mystified. > > Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed > > counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability > so we > > passed. > > > > Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in > Apache > > thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result > of > > our inherent subjectivity > > > > I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there > was > > disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the > previous > > conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that > the > > Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part > of > > that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about > > ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something > > forward. > > How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are > interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL > that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of > anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? > > In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS > projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with > BPEL. > > Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the > community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would > entail, actually...) > > Would you be interested in that? > > geir > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Bill Flood wrote: I'm open to what works best. I think the proposal for Ode is in essence a fresh starting point for a community. Sybase just happened to submit some code, which may or may not be accepted and that we thought was passable. In the end, the community has the last say so we welcome that type of open discussion. That's why I'm bringing it up here :) Good luck with it. geir On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill Flood wrote: Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they had and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator project. We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be any uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in and provide coding help on what they already had. I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and wouldn't want to just drop them. I was a little mystified. Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability so we passed. Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in Apache thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result of our inherent subjectivity I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there was disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the previous conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that the Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part of that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something forward. How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with BPEL. Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would entail, actually...) Would you be interested in that? geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Lance Waterman wrote: As one of the Sybase BPEL developers, this certainly sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps we can start a discussion around what the "bake off" criteria will look like ( i.e. what BPEL constructs are fully/half/not supported, what set of unit tests should be supported, etc ... ). As an example; in looking through the Agila code ( which could have rendered faulty assumptions ) it appears that the BPEL "Scope" construct is not currently supported. I rate "Scope" as quite important to have in a BPEL implementation and its not a simple thing to implement. Likewise, I am sure there are criteria that the Sybase donated engine does not fully measure against. While I'm not sure how far along the BPEL engine in Agila is (Twister), I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at the same level of completeness as your implementation. geir Lance On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill Flood wrote: Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they had and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator project. We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be any uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in and provide coding help on what they already had. I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and wouldn't want to just drop them. I was a little mystified. Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability so we passed. Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in Apache thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result of our inherent subjectivity I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there was disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the previous conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that the Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part of that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something forward. How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with BPEL. Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would entail, actually...) Would you be interested in that? geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS > projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with BPEL. > > Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the > community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would > entail, actually...) Geir, I don't understand this at all. In different threads you seem to be simultaneously talking about bringing it to Agila, bringing it to ServiceMix, having the Geronimo PMC vote on it, and now you're recommending a "bake-off" where no one does anything with any code until "the one true way" emerges? I won't speculate on your motives, but this strikes me as an... unusual approach. Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to Geronimo. I would compare it to the transaction manager within Geronimo. It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take the best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine. If anything, the JBI container is like Geronimo, and the BPEL Engine is like the Transaction Manager, and note (everyone) what happened there. We didn't create a separate projects for the transaction manager, we just build a good one in Geronimo and made it intelligently portable. Then, when someone had a fancy to use it in Spring without the rest of Geronimo, they created Jencks, and now we have a standalone projects for that purpose and the best of both worlds, but it was born by putting the code in the container where it would be used, making it solid and portable there, and building outward. Thanks, Aaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Incubator announce list
Hi, There is an Incubator announce mailing list at announce@incubator.apache.org that nobody seems to be using. Is it supposed to be used? See: http://incubator.apache.org/howtoparticipate.html#announce+at+incubator.apache.org http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-announce/ PS. I tried sending the Jackrabbit 0.9 release announcement there in addition to the Jackrabbit mailing list, but the announcement bounced because I didn't use my @apache.org address. Is using the @apache.org address for release announcements a best practice? BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
> Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to > Geronimo. I would compare it to the transaction manager within > Geronimo. It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take the > best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I > don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine. I've been trying to stay out of the discussion so far because I'm obviously partial (as a contributor on Agila BPEL), however I've seen this opinion voiced many time on these threads and can't ignore it anymore. Aaron it's not against you at all :) I've worked enough on BPEL implementing it to say, really strongly, that BPEL is very far from being a discrete component. You can see it as something "behind the scene" when you're working on a JBI container, however when you're interested in having an orchestration layer, you really don't. I don't think Oracle, IBM and many other editors would be so successful in selling their product if it was so discrete. You really don't need a JBI container if you're only dealing with web services interfaces. Actually my view on this was that an ESB is just a communication bus around an orchestration layer. Quite the reverse opinion, isn't it? And I can't see any JBI implementation dealing with the BPEL grammar. Is the JBI implementation going to deal with compensation, correlation and partner links? I don't think so. What about editing BPEL process descriptions? And eventually, is the JBI implementation going to provide BAM interfaces? So the scope of a full BPEL implementation is quite large. I hope that people working on the BPEL specs didn't hear too much about this thread, that would be quite depressing :) Matthieu Riou. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
> How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are > interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL > that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of > anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? I would be quite happy to contribute and help to build such a project. BPEL is getting more and more momentum these days and bringing more advanced code and more contributors would definitely be a nice thing. Matthieu Riou. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Incubator announce list
On 2/14/06, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > because I didn't use my @apache.org address. Is using the @apache.org > address for release announcements a best practice? Yes. =) -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with BPEL. Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would entail, actually...) Geir, I don't understand this at all. In different threads you seem to be simultaneously talking about bringing it to Agila, bringing it to ServiceMix, having the Geronimo PMC vote on it, and now you're recommending a "bake-off" where no one does anything with any code until "the one true way" emerges? I don't know if you've been following this closely, but originally it was suggested that the Sybase engine go to ServiceMix (hence the "bringing it to ServiceMix" part), which would require the vote of the Geronimo PMC (which is in fact what James did). Today, we were introduced to the ODE Proposal, which is a new podling proposal that is to be sponsored by the Geronimo PMC (hence my question about a vote about that since it would be yet another podling sponsored and overseen by the Geronimo PMC, and we hadn't voted on it), and I wondered if there was interest/synergy w/ the Agila podling, which is already working on an implementation of a BPEL orchestration engine. I hope that clears up the confusion for the first three elements of the above. As for the "bake off", I'm not recommending anything - I was asking if it made sense to see what kind of broader community could be assembled around this, without presuming the primacy of one codebase - choosing the best of what shows up. If you've been following the whole soap opera for the past week or so, you might recall that there was considerable concern from various members of the ASF community regarding this subject, with the suggestion (from greg) that we should "Erase the lines and create a community that can work on something with a cooperative atmosphere." > I won't speculate on your motives, > but this strikes me as an... unusual approach. What strikes you as unusual? Bringing multiple groups together to work on a given technology? My motive is to try and get rid of some of the cloud of bad karma thats hanging over this whole discussion because it's the last thing the Geronimo project needs right now. It's also not good for the new people that wish to join our community, the Sybasians. (Sybasers?) I also think that BPEL is an interesting technology and I would like to see a community flourish around a great implementation here at the ASF. What's your motive? Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to Geronimo. I would compare it to the transaction manager within Geronimo. It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take the best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine. Ok. I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on BPEL implementations, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that we'd try to take 20. However, could you imagine taking a few and finding the best aspects of each? Are they really that monolithic that you can't find component parts that you could blend together to make something better? What about clustering? What about management or tooling? Support for different versions of BPEL? How about service hosting? Do they have a container (like PXE) or can they be used to orchestrate external containers (say a mix of services deployed though a heterogeneous environment, say w/ Geronimo, Tuscany and Axis+Tomcat (I dunno...), with the BPEL engine just deployed into Jetty? If anything, the JBI container is like Geronimo, and the BPEL Engine is like the Transaction Manager, and note (everyone) what happened there. We didn't create a separate projects for the transaction manager, we just build a good one in Geronimo and made it intelligently portable. > Then, when someone had a fancy to use it in Spring without the rest of Geronimo, they created Jencks, and now we have a standalone projects for that purpose and the best of both worlds, but it was born by putting the code in the container where it would be used, making it solid and portable there, and building outward. Hey - I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on BPEL orchestration systems, so I guess I'll take your word for it that it's like a monolithic transaction manager. In the past, I've built production workflow systems (not BPEL, more like a JMS-driven SOA) that weren't at all monolithic - they got a bit complicated, actually, so that's what's driving my understanding of what a full BPEL orchestration system should be like. geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Glad to have you with us Matthieu. I agree with a lot of your assessment; BPEL is really only part of the discussion (as being one language for describing interactions with WSDL-based constructs) while service orchestration is the larger picture. In that regard, I can understand the transaction manager analaogy that was made elsewhere and inherently the relationship to the service bus. When we built our orchestration implementation we referred to the full range of academically recognized workflow patterns that are a clearly a superset of BPEL - knowing that BPEL is but one means to describe orchestration in the context of WSDL. If we had started with BPEL, the language, for the source of our design patterns we would have had only a partial understanding of orchestration. Having said that, the BPEL use cases are clearly important. On 2/14/06, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are > > interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL > > that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of > > anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we > can? > > I would be quite happy to contribute and help to build such a project. > BPEL is getting more and more momentum these days and bringing more > advanced code and more contributors would definitely be a nice thing. > > Matthieu Riou. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Bill, >From what I am reading today between you, Geir, Lance and Mattieu, it seems that there is an emerging consensus, so if you are all willing, we could add your team as committers to Agila and import the code base as soon as we have the software grant (I haven't checked to see if that is already filed). We will have multiple engines unless/until the people working on them decide to merge them, but will look for the workflow community to come together as one, while managing multiple engines and supporting a variety of client projects. I would hope to see everyone who has been in favor of workflow, but not sure about how it was being imported, to be active in helping to build a healthy workflow community. Personally, I look forward to seeing happy, enthusiastic, comments; cross-pollination; many using projects; and an overall advancement in solutions to the problem domain. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Noel, we do seem to be coming together in prinicipal but it might be best to achieve our "fresh start" in the practical context of Ode given the support exhibited by other folks on the submission. In Apache projects address a certain area of concern (e.g., JAXB, BPEL, CORBA etc.) but they do so in the context of an community based implementation (as opposed to standards committees, which don't have implementations). Likewise, Agila is an implementation and having two implementations in the same project could be confusing. For Ode, what we have come up with to date is our contribution...there may be something else that fits that bill as well but I have not been exposed to those other offerings yet and we do have some approval of what we have proposed. I appreciate folks need to support current users of the Agila code base but I need to lean with the critical mass of the community. I hope you'll support this new proposal too. On 2/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > From what I am reading today between you, Geir, Lance and Mattieu, it > seems > that there is an emerging consensus, so if you are all willing, we could > add > your team as committers to Agila and import the code base as soon as we > have > the software grant (I haven't checked to see if that is already > filed). We > will have multiple engines unless/until the people working on them decide > to > merge them, but will look for the workflow community to come together as > one, while managing multiple engines and supporting a variety of client > projects. > > I would hope to see everyone who has been in favor of workflow, but not > sure > about how it was being imported, to be active in helping to build a > healthy > workflow community. Personally, I look forward to seeing happy, > enthusiastic, comments; cross-pollination; many using projects; and an > overall advancement in solutions to the problem domain. > > --- Noel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
So, it's been about two weeks. It seems like this is all the discussion we are going to get. What is the next step? -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Hi Matthieu, I don't think Aaron would disagree with you. Going back to his transaction manager analogy, a transaction manager is much more complicated than geronimo the container. Just like a BPLE engine is much more complicated than a JBI container. The beautiful thing geronimo and servicemix have in common is that they provide a standard way to wire components together to create more complex and sophisticated systems. In short, servicemix is simply about having a standard way of integrating service based engines like BPEL, SCA, Web Services, and legacy stuff. Regards, Hiram On Feb 14, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote: Also, I don't at all agree with your comparison of a BPEL Engine to Geronimo. I would compare it to the transaction manager within Geronimo. It's a discrete component, and we're not going to take the best of 20 different projects to make a transaction manager, and I don't see why we'd do the same to make a BPEL Engine. I've been trying to stay out of the discussion so far because I'm obviously partial (as a contributor on Agila BPEL), however I've seen this opinion voiced many time on these threads and can't ignore it anymore. Aaron it's not against you at all :) I've worked enough on BPEL implementing it to say, really strongly, that BPEL is very far from being a discrete component. You can see it as something "behind the scene" when you're working on a JBI container, however when you're interested in having an orchestration layer, you really don't. I don't think Oracle, IBM and many other editors would be so successful in selling their product if it was so discrete. You really don't need a JBI container if you're only dealing with web services interfaces. Actually my view on this was that an ESB is just a communication bus around an orchestration layer. Quite the reverse opinion, isn't it? And I can't see any JBI implementation dealing with the BPEL grammar. Is the JBI implementation going to deal with compensation, correlation and partner links? I don't think so. What about editing BPEL process descriptions? And eventually, is the JBI implementation going to provide BAM interfaces? So the scope of a full BPEL implementation is quite large. I hope that people working on the BPEL specs didn't hear too much about this thread, that would be quite depressing :) Matthieu Riou. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
David, The mentors should have karma to setup the status file. At least one of them has karma to the SVN access control lists. Do we have all of the CLAs and a Software Grant? If so, *after* the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has been created, we can import the code under incubator/openejb. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: David, The mentors should have karma to setup the status file. At least one of them has karma to the SVN access control lists. Do we have all of the CLAs and a Software Grant? Ok. I made nearly all the OpenEJB committers sign CLAs way back when Geronimo started as a preventative measure. Is it possible to do a quick cross-check of our committers list and the CLAs on file? Keep in mind I have no idea if what i'm asking is hard. If so, *after* the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list has been created, we can import the code under incubator/openejb. Ok. Thanks, David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
David Blevins wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > >David, > > > >The mentors should have karma to setup the status file. At least > >one of > >them has karma to the SVN access control lists. Do we have all of > >the CLAs > >and a Software Grant? > > Ok. I made nearly all the OpenEJB committers sign CLAs way back when > Geronimo started as a preventative measure. Is it possible to do a > quick cross-check of our committers list and the CLAs on file? Keep > in mind I have no idea if what i'm asking is hard. See the list at http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html The top table is the list of committers (which by definition have a CLA). The bottom table is those CLAs recorded but are not committers. -David > > If so, *after* the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > >has been created, we can import the code under incubator/openejb. > > Ok. > > Thanks, > David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
David Crossley wrote: > David Blevins wrote: > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > >David, > > > > > >The mentors should have karma to setup the status file. At least > > >one of > > >them has karma to the SVN access control lists. Do we have all of > > >the CLAs > > >and a Software Grant? > > > > Ok. I made nearly all the OpenEJB committers sign CLAs way back when > > Geronimo started as a preventative measure. Is it possible to do a > > quick cross-check of our committers list and the CLAs on file? Keep > > in mind I have no idea if what i'm asking is hard. > > See the list at http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html > The top table is the list of committers (which by definition > have a CLA). The bottom table is those CLAs recorded but > are not committers. Also see http://people.apache.org/~jim/projects.html -David > > > If so, *after* the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > >has been created, we can import the code under incubator/openejb. > > > > Ok. > > > > Thanks, > > David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] incubate OpenEJB as sub-projects of Geronimo
On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, David Crossley wrote: David Blevins wrote: Is it possible to do a quick cross-check of our committers list and the CLAs on file? Keep in mind I have no idea if what i'm asking is hard. See the list at http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html The top table is the list of committers (which by definition have a CLA). The bottom table is those CLAs recorded but are not committers. Perfect. Thanks! -David - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[site] URLs, xdocs, references
Hi gang, This whole "how do we do URLs for an xdocs website" stuff is interesting. We were used to the forrest way of doing things (aka being really intelligent about it), and now we have the anakia way of doing things (aka, at least currently, ignoring the fact that we're working with URLss completely). By far the safest way to do all this is to simply forgo the whole relative+ base = absolute and use absolute links everywhere. Failing that, there is the option to specify the base explicitly (which I put in place) so that it is trivial to understand what the absolute URL becomes when there is a relative one given. Failing that, it all becomes a little harder. The next possibility is to use relative URLs that either start with a '#' (eg are just fragment identifiers) or with a '/' (eg only use the "host" part of whatever is the base URL). I think we're at this last step. So, word of advice: in all source xdocs, specify URLs that start either start with 'http:' or with '#' or with '/' does that make sense? cheers, Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
