Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Great stuff Ismael! James On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:07, Ismael Ghalimi wrote: Good afternoon, My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company would be interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine and the dedication of development resources to the project. The PXE BPEL 2.0 engine is currently licensed under the CPL open source license, and has been integrated into third-party products/projects such as Sun's Java Studio Enterprise and LogicBlaze's ServiceMix. We understand that multiple implementations of BPEL might be contributed to the project, and are willing to support the one that will be selected by the Ode community. We believe that Apache is the right community for the development of a solid implementation of the latest BPEL specification, and our goal is to participate to this project as actively as we can, so that the community at large could benefit from it. Ideally, we would like to contribute to the development of a BPEL engine that could be deployed on top of any J2EE application server, integrated with any ESB, and support the most current version of the BPEL specification. Alongside our donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine, we are also willing to contribute an AJAX-powered management console for the BPEL engine and an XForms-based workflow engine that implements the concepts of the BPEL4People proposal from IBM and SAP, without relying on any extension of the BPEL specification. We believe that the BPEL management console should become part of the Ode project, while the BPEL4People workflow engine could either become part of the Ode project, or be developed through a separate project. Additionally, the following people would participate to the project: * Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED], co-author of the BPEL specification * Alex Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer * Jacques-Alexandre Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer * Holger Hoffstaette [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer * Iwan Memruk [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer * Maciej Szefler [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Chief Architect * Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED], Agila + PXE Developer * Nazar Stasiv [EMAIL PROTECTED] Console developer * Olexandr Zakordonskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE & Console developer * Oleg Zenzin [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer Beyond our open source work on PXE, Intalio has developed a good experience with Open Source projects in general and the Apache community in particular. For example, we were the original developers for OpenEJB, which served as one of the building blocks for Geronimo. We also developed the original codebase for Slide and donated OpenXML to the Xerces project, alongside IBM's donation of XML4J. We also developed the Castor, OpenJMS and OpenORB projects under Apache license. These projects are now being developed by communities such as CodeHaus or ObjectWeb. Today, we wish to share our experience and resources with the Apache community, and look forward to a very successful and exciting project. Best regards -- Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com weblog.itredux.com James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - 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 really glad to finally see a consensus emerging! Matthieu. >Bill,> It seems everybody has exhibited a willingness to work togetherI agree. And since we've just gotten off the phone, I'll pass along thatyou have expressed not only a willingness, but a strong preference that bothyour group and Intalio's join together in a single community with both codebases from which to work.- Show quoted text - --- Noel-To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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)
I'm not sure it's consensus - more a case of folks getting fed up with the petty arguing and just want to get things done. On 16 Feb 2006, at 08:54, Matthieu Riou wrote: I'm really glad to finally see a consensus emerging! Matthieu. Bill,> It seems everybody has exhibited a willingness to work togetherI agree. And since we've just gotten off the phone, I'll pass along thatyou have expressed not only a willingness, but a strong preference that bothyour group and Intalio's join together in a single community with both codebases from which to work.- Show quoted text - --- Noel-- ---To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: [site] URLs, xdocs, references
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 08:38:13AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 2/14/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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). > > I don't get it - why can't we enable relativise in anakia? I don't know. Don't look at me. I seem to remember from a few years ago there were some issues with some website at some point and the solution was to use maven 1.0 beta 6. Or something. I just patched some things. I'm not an anakia expert and I don't want to be :-) - LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Thanks! On 2/16/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great stuff Ismael! > > James > > On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:07, Ismael Ghalimi wrote: > > > Good afternoon, > > > > My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company > > would be > > interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation > > of the PXE > > BPEL 2.0 engine and the dedication of development resources to the > > project. > > The PXE BPEL 2.0 engine is currently licensed under the CPL open > > source > > license, and has been integrated into third-party products/projects > > such as > > Sun's Java Studio Enterprise and LogicBlaze's ServiceMix. > > > > We understand that multiple implementations of BPEL might be > > contributed to > > the project, and are willing to support the one that will be > > selected by the > > Ode community. We believe that Apache is the right community for the > > development of a solid implementation of the latest BPEL > > specification, and > > our goal is to participate to this project as actively as we can, > > so that > > the community at large could benefit from it. Ideally, we would > > like to > > contribute to the development of a BPEL engine that could be > > deployed on top > > of any J2EE application server, integrated with any ESB, and > > support the > > most current version of the BPEL specification. > > > > Alongside our donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine, we are also > > willing to > > contribute an AJAX-powered management console for the BPEL engine > > and an > > XForms-based workflow engine that implements the concepts of the > > BPEL4People > > proposal from IBM and SAP, without relying on any extension of the > > BPEL > > specification. We believe that the BPEL management console should > > become > > part of the Ode project, while the BPEL4People workflow engine > > could either > > become part of the Ode project, or be developed through a separate > > project. > > > > Additionally, the following people would participate to the project: > > > > * Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED], co-author of the BPEL specification > > * Alex Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer > > * Jacques-Alexandre Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > > * Holger Hoffstaette [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer > > * Iwan Memruk [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > > * Maciej Szefler [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Chief Architect > > * Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED], Agila + PXE Developer > > * Nazar Stasiv [EMAIL PROTECTED] Console developer > > * Olexandr Zakordonskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE & Console developer > > * Oleg Zenzin [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > > > > Beyond our open source work on PXE, Intalio has developed a good > > experience > > with Open Source projects in general and the Apache community in > > particular. > > For example, we were the original developers for OpenEJB, which > > served as > > one of the building blocks for Geronimo. We also developed the > > original > > codebase for Slide and donated OpenXML to the Xerces project, > > alongside > > IBM's donation of XML4J. We also developed the Castor, OpenJMS and > > OpenORB > > projects under Apache license. These projects are now being > > developed by > > communities such as CodeHaus or ObjectWeb. > > > > Today, we wish to share our experience and resources with the Apache > > community, and look forward to a very successful and exciting project. > > > > Best regards > > -- > > Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO > > Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com > > weblog.itredux.com > > > James > --- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com weblog.itredux.com
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Alan, Thanks for doing this. It looks good. One comment: in the "Homogeneous developers" section, we might want to make mention of Intalio alongside Sybase in order to re-enforce the group's heterogeneity. Best regards -Ismael On 2/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Done. Feel free to amend. > > > Regards, > Alan > > Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/15/2006 2:15 PM: > > Welcome aboard > > > > Alan, James, > > Could you please update the wiki proposal? > > > > thanks, > > dims > > > > On 2/15/06, Ismael Ghalimi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Good afternoon, > >> > >>My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company > would be > >>interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation of the > PXE > >>BPEL 2.0 engine and the dedication of development resources to the > project. > >>The PXE BPEL 2.0 engine is currently licensed under the CPL open source > >>license, and has been integrated into third-party products/projects such > as > >>Sun's Java Studio Enterprise and LogicBlaze's ServiceMix. > >> > >>We understand that multiple implementations of BPEL might be contributed > to > >>the project, and are willing to support the one that will be selected by > the > >>Ode community. We believe that Apache is the right community for the > >>development of a solid implementation of the latest BPEL specification, > and > >>our goal is to participate to this project as actively as we can, so > that > >>the community at large could benefit from it. Ideally, we would like to > >>contribute to the development of a BPEL engine that could be deployed on > top > >>of any J2EE application server, integrated with any ESB, and support the > >>most current version of the BPEL specification. > >> > >>Alongside our donation of the PXE BPEL 2.0 engine, we are also willing > to > >>contribute an AJAX-powered management console for the BPEL engine and an > >>XForms-based workflow engine that implements the concepts of the > BPEL4People > >>proposal from IBM and SAP, without relying on any extension of the BPEL > >>specification. We believe that the BPEL management console should become > >>part of the Ode project, while the BPEL4People workflow engine could > either > >>become part of the Ode project, or be developed through a separate > project. > >> > >>Additionally, the following people would participate to the project: > >> > >>* Assaf Arkin [EMAIL PROTECTED], co-author of the BPEL specification > >>* Alex Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer > >>* Jacques-Alexandre Gerber [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > >>* Holger Hoffstaette [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Developer > >>* Iwan Memruk [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > >>* Maciej Szefler [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE Chief Architect > >>* Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED], Agila + PXE Developer > >>* Nazar Stasiv [EMAIL PROTECTED] Console developer > >>* Olexandr Zakordonskyy [EMAIL PROTECTED], PXE & Console developer > >>* Oleg Zenzin [EMAIL PROTECTED], BPEL4People Developer > >> > >>Beyond our open source work on PXE, Intalio has developed a good > experience > >>with Open Source projects in general and the Apache community in > particular. > >>For example, we were the original developers for OpenEJB, which served > as > >>one of the building blocks for Geronimo. We also developed the original > >>codebase for Slide and donated OpenXML to the Xerces project, alongside > >>IBM's donation of XML4J. We also developed the Castor, OpenJMS and > OpenORB > >>projects under Apache license. These projects are now being developed by > >>communities such as CodeHaus or ObjectWeb. > >> > >>Today, we wish to share our experience and resources with the Apache > >>community, and look forward to a very successful and exciting project. > >> > >>Best regards > >>-- > >>Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO > >>Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com > >>weblog.itredux.com > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ > > > > - > > 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] > > -- Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com weblog.itredux.com
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Yes, we appear to be to a point where we can move the Ode project forward on its own merit if the vote supports it and at that point get to an objective criteria for determining how to work out the internal details. I'm specifically avoiding judgements about the merit of any overlapping implementation or final destination of the project since that will be worked out in time. My preference is simply that we apply our combined talent to work towards something greater than the sum of the parts. Bill On 2/15/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill, > > > It seems everybody has exhibited a willingness to work together > > I agree. And since we've just gotten off the phone, I'll pass along that > you have expressed not only a willingness, but a strong preference that > both > your group and Intalio's join together in a single community with both > code > bases from which to work. > > --- Noel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Bill and Ismael, Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our combined talent to work towards something greater than the sum of the parts." and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both donors is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which will start from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really great will be the payoff from the initial angst. Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can go ahead with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", so that you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and "Ode" projects. I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just asking the question. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Noel, We are in favor of a single project, for it will lead to the best implementation we can get with the resources that are being dedicated to the project. The meaning of the Ode (ODE?) acronym seems a little bit confusing and might have to be clarified. The name itself is nice though. Our primary concern moving forward will be whether we start from one codebase, or try to merge two existing codebases. We have no preference on the matter, but would like to be compliant with the 2.0 version of the specification as soon as possible. Based on personal experience, moving from BPEL 1.1 to BPEL 2.0 represents a very significant effort, and we believe that we should try to minimize this effort as much as we can, for many other nice features could be developed instead. It should also be mentioned that PXE currently supports both BPEL 2.0 and BPEL 1.1. We understand that such issues might have to be discussed at a later stage and are looking for guidance on that front. Best regards -Ismael On 2/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bill and Ismael, > > Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: > > Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" > Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our >combined talent to work towards something >greater than the sum of the parts." > > and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both donors > is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which will > start > from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, > comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of > excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really great > will > be the payoff from the initial angst. > > Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can go > ahead > with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", so > that > you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at > graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and > "Ode" > projects. > > I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just asking > the > question. > > --- Noel > > -- Ismael Chang Ghalimi, CEO Intalio, The Open Source BPMS Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.intalio.com weblog.itredux.com
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
If i may+1 to ode. let's get this rolling with ode-dev@ thanks, -- dims On 2/16/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill and Ismael, > > Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: > > Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" > Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our >combined talent to work towards something >greater than the sum of the parts." > > and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both donors > is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which will start > from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, > comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of > excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really great will > be the payoff from the initial angst. > > Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can go ahead > with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", so that > you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at > graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and "Ode" > projects. > > I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just asking the > question. > > --- Noel > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
Alan I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking forward to it. Paul On 2/14/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") geir Noel J. Bergman wrote: Bill and Ismael, Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our combined talent to work towards something greater than the sum of the parts." and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both donors is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which will start from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really great will be the payoff from the initial angst. Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can go ahead with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", so that you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and "Ode" projects. I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just asking the question. --- Noel - 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 / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
On 16 Feb 2006, at 16:41, Ismael Ghalimi wrote: [snip] Our primary concern moving forward will be whether we start from one codebase, or try to merge two existing codebases. From a purely practical perspective, its probably easiest to start off with the 2 codebases imported (when the IP & software grants are all done) into separate modules then over time we can see how best to merge things & share stuff, moving shared stuff maybe into separate modules for easier reuse. Going from 2 codebases to 1 is gonna take a while. Just like XMLBeans v JaxMe v Xerces or Struts v Tapestry v Cocoon v Turbine; we don't have to mandate that everything be merged into one single unified codebase up front - we can work at it incrementally over time and see how much reuse we can get; it might be parts remain diverged as there's not always one size fits all. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
Welcome aboard! Regards, Alan Paul Fremantle wrote, On 2/16/2006 9:28 AM: Alan I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking forward to it. Paul On 2/14/06, Bill Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
On 2/16/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking > forward to it. How can a member of the community at large participate in the process? (I'm relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase...) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
I agree, we'll need to set both codebases in the repository so we can start the merge process. In parallel, we also need to determine what we want from the resulting merge so we can work together in building the new engine. alex James Strachan wrote: > On 16 Feb 2006, at 16:41, Ismael Ghalimi wrote: > [snip] > >> Our primary concern moving forward will be whether we start from one >> codebase, or try to merge two existing codebases. > > > From a purely practical perspective, its probably easiest to start > off with the 2 codebases imported (when the IP & software grants are > all done) into separate modules then over time we can see how best to > merge things & share stuff, moving shared stuff maybe into separate > modules for easier reuse. Going from 2 codebases to 1 is gonna take a > while. Just like XMLBeans v JaxMe v Xerces or Struts v Tapestry v > Cocoon v Turbine; we don't have to mandate that everything be merged > into one single unified codebase up front - we can work at it > incrementally over time and see how much reuse we can get; it might > be parts remain diverged as there's not always one size fits all. > > James > --- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > > - > 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 / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
This raises an interesting point. Is the goal of the project to produce a BPEL engine? If so, then we could have separation between BPEL (processes) and workflow (human tasks). I think this would help modularity and clarify project focus. In order words, workflow-related pieces could go into a separate project and the existing code from Agila would be split between the two resulting projects. So we would end up with something like: Apache BPEL => Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL Apache BPEL4People => Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People (... and possibly other donations) alex Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or > similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know > it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to > recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") > > geir > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > >> Bill and Ismael, >> >> Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: >> >> Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" >> Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our >>combined talent to work towards something >>greater than the sum of the parts." >> >> and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both >> donors >> is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which >> will start >> from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, >> comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of >> excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really >> great will >> be the payoff from the initial angst. >> >> Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can >> go ahead >> with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", >> so that >> you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at >> graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and >> "Ode" >> projects. >> >> I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just >> asking the >> question. >> >> --- Noel > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
You kidding me? Please join us. "relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase" is the understatment of the year. -- dims On 2/16/06, Paul Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/16/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking > > forward to it. > > How can a member of the community at large participate in the process? > (I'm relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase...) > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
It would seem better to think of the (human) workflow in a different scope as we disect the problem. There are all kinds of issues in Workflow with forms, etc. that have little to do with the actual orchestration or even BPEL. Brings to mind MVC. It might make sense to divide the problem space like this: Human workflow | BPEL Orchestration Engine Likewise, human workflow could be built on BPEL I suppose but there are other languages that might be mapped into an engine as well. At any rate, keeping the human workflow out of the engine scope is probably worth thinking about. I tend to think of BPEL as a languge for describing orchestration and not in terms of an engine built for BPEL. BPEL is a subset of a broader set of orchestration patterns. There is plenty of academic literature to support that notion. If one supports the patters up front, one can implement BPEL. Presumably, there is a use case and implementation relationship both ways so one can do debugging and so forth. On 2/16/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This raises an interesting point. Is the goal of the project to produce > a BPEL engine? If so, then we could have separation between BPEL > (processes) and workflow (human tasks). I think this would help > modularity and clarify project focus. > > In order words, workflow-related pieces could go into a separate > project and the existing code from Agila would be split between the two > resulting projects. > > So we would end up with something like: > > Apache BPEL => Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL > Apache BPEL4People => Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People > > (... and possibly other donations) > > alex > > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > > Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or > > similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know > > it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to > > recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") > > > > geir > > > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > >> Bill and Ismael, > >> > >> Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as: > >> > >> Ismael: "Intalio [working] alongside Sybase" > >> Bill Flood: "My preference is simply that we apply our > >>combined talent to work towards something > >>greater than the sum of the parts." > >> > >> and from a telephone call with Bill, the desire on the part of both > >> donors > >> is to have a single project, rather than two separate ones, which > >> will start > >> from both codebases, and work together with others on a union. FWIW, > >> comments that I have received in the past day indicate a great deal of > >> excitement about this possibility, so hopefully something really > >> great will > >> be the payoff from the initial angst. > >> > >> Is there a consensus to call this joint project Ode? If so, we can > >> go ahead > >> with that. Else, if you wanted we could start with "bpel-wg-dev@", > >> so that > >> you can immediately start, and leave "Ode" available for use later at > >> graduation or if there arises a later desire to have separate PXE and > >> "Ode" > >> projects. > >> > >> I prefer, as it seems both of you do, the joint community. Just > >> asking the > >> question. > >> > >> --- Noel > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
+1 for importing the codebase into 2 subdirectories to start with. However, if we want to merge the two into one, then let's make it a goal that we don't release anything until we've figured out how to cut-n-chop & mix-n-match to make that real. Its clearly not going to be easy and will take some serious effort and cooperation to make that real. I too greatly prefer the idea of having one BPEL engine (properly layered ofcourse .. the part that does the core language vs. the part that does people-facing activities etc.) as there's little benefit in having multiple of those in ASF given it'll simply reduce the available developer resources. I'm glad to see the two seed organizations be so willing to cut-n-chop to make that real; it bodes really well for the success of the project! Sanjiva. On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 18:37 +, James Strachan wrote: > On 16 Feb 2006, at 16:41, Ismael Ghalimi wrote: > [snip] > > Our primary concern moving forward will be whether we start from one > > codebase, or try to merge two existing codebases. > > From a purely practical perspective, its probably easiest to start > off with the 2 codebases imported (when the IP & software grants are > all done) into separate modules then over time we can see how best to > merge things & share stuff, moving shared stuff maybe into separate > modules for easier reuse. Going from 2 codebases to 1 is gonna take a > while. Just like XMLBeans v JaxMe v Xerces or Struts v Tapestry v > Cocoon v Turbine; we don't have to mandate that everything be merged > into one single unified codebase up front - we can work at it > incrementally over time and see how much reuse we can get; it might > be parts remain diverged as there's not always one size fits all. > > James > --- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > > - > 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 / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Bill Flood wrote: >Likewise, human workflow could be built on BPEL I suppose but there are >other languages that might be mapped into an engine as well. At any rate, >keeping the human workflow out of the engine scope is probably worth >thinking about. > > +1. This is what I am proposing. alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") -1 -- there should not be any more project names at Apache that claim ownership of a functionality space. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Though Apache SOAP was a bit before my time...i agree :) On 2/16/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > > > Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or > > similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I > > know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for > > people to recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") > > -1 -- there should not be any more project names at Apache that claim > ownership of a functionality space. > > Roy > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
Alright, then I would revise my proposition to: Apache Ode => Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL Apache Agila => Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People What do people think about this grouping? alex Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >> Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or >> similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I >> know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for >> people to recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") > > > -1 -- there should not be any more project names at Apache that claim > ownership of a functionality space. > > Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ode Proposal
really. I thought he was joking or some other Paul Brown... Davanum Srinivas wrote: You kidding me? Please join us. "relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase" is the understatment of the year. -- dims On 2/16/06, Paul Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/16/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm also keen to join in. I'm very positive about ODE and I'm looking forward to it. How can a member of the community at large participate in the process? (I'm relatively familiar with BPEL and with the PXE codebase...) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ - 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 / BPEL Donation of BPEL 2.0 Engine
I agree - too narrow since it names a spec. I wasn't thinking claiming spec ownership, just giving people a clue. So how narrow do you think? We have : httpd db directory logging perl portals TCL WS XML XMLGraphics as project names that "cover" an area. Maybe HTTPD isn't one (Apache BPELd?) How about adding BPEL as a suffix? Apache OpenBPEL is out - (OpenBPEL already exists...) Apache Fielding? :) geir Roy T. Fielding wrote: On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as "Apache BPEL" or similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like "ActiveBPEL") -1 -- there should not be any more project names at Apache that claim ownership of a functionality space. Roy - 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)
A BPEL engine is integrated within JBI using a JBI component. In such a case, the BPEL engine should only communicate with the JBI bus (excluding direct http calls or whatever else). The JBI container is really a container which communicates with a component using a set of specified interfaces, but in no way there is a strong tie from the bpel engine to jbi: it is more like having the right entry points to be able to perform everything needed by the jbi spec: retrieving the wsdl, finding inputs and outputs. If I have to make a comparison, it would say it is similar to the database and its jdbc driver: the database does not need to be dependant on jdbc, but they offer a driver that wraps jdbc specific stuff to native calls.. Here the component wraps JBI calls to BPEL events. The main difference is that usually, the BPEL engine will be embedded in the JBI component ... Cheers, Guillaume Nodet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with JBI as I probably should be (which is to say not at all). Would leveraging JBI to do Ode's heavy lifting introduce a dependency on ServiceMix and/or JBI into Ode, or is it merely a Java-based interface to BPEL, along the lines of JDBC or JNDI? 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 James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: general@incubator.apache.org mail.com>cc: dev@geronimo.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine 02/15/2006 03:27 into the ServiceMix project) AM Please respond to dev On 14 Feb 2006, at 21:38, 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. Sure but it really helps. The JBI container does much of the heavy lifting, letting the BPEL engine focus on its core feature - correlation & orchestration and not worrying about all the other stuff as well. 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. Agreed. But similarly - should a BPEL engine deal with different integration components, different SOAP stacks, different WS-* policies, monitoring, management, using HTTP or JMS or Jabber or file systems, deployment, versioning, runtime management & monitoring of each flow? The J2EE analogy is quite good; BPEL is a discrete service but can reuse the container environment of JBI to avoid the BPEL engine having to write a container, a deployment model and a suite of 'binding components' to
Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
On 16 Feb 2006, at 23:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: James, I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with JBI as I probably should be (which is to say not at all). Would leveraging JBI to do Ode's heavy lifting introduce a dependency on ServiceMix and/or JBI into Ode, or is it merely a Java-based interface to BPEL, along the lines of JDBC or JNDI? You'd be adding a *optional* dependency to the JBI standard (JSR 208) (there's no reason why you couldn't support other techniques)... http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=208 think of it as a bit like the JMS API for working with BPEL engines, integration services or any WSDL defined MEP. The use of JBI is twofold: you can use JBI (as an optional module) inside Ode to perform all the message exchanges - avoiding the need of Ode to worry about different SOAP stacks, transports, transactions, QoS together with building your own mini-application server into the BPEL engine etc. Or you can use JBI to invoke and interact with a BPEL engine if you are some application or integration component that wishes to reuse BPEL. Its a little like integrating JMS or JDBC; once you've a JBI integration point, there is a large range of providers you can then use; in terms of JBI container (ServiceMix, Petals, OpenESB, commercial vendors like Sonic etc) as well as integration services like BPEL engines (Ode, maybe jBPM or Oracles' etc) and integration components. (e.g. these are the JBI components available in ServiceMix right now... http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Components http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/Routing So Ode could have other integration points too though - its just that JBI should be the first and foremost connector, since its standards based and already provides integration to the widest range of different services and binding components. James 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 James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: general@incubator.apache.org mail.com>cc: dev@geronimo.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine 02/15/2006 03:27 into the ServiceMix project) AM Please respond to dev On 14 Feb 2006, at 21:38, 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. Sure but it really helps. The JBI container does much of the heavy lifting, letting the BPEL engine focus on its core feature - correlation & orchestration and not worrying about all the other stuff as well. 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. Agreed. But similarly - should a BPEL engine deal with different integration components, different SOAP stacks, different WS-* policies, monitoring, management, using HTTP or JMS or Jabber or file systems, deployment, versioning, runtime management & monitoring of each flow? The J2EE analogy is quite good; BPEL is a discrete service but can reuse the container environment of JBI to avoid the BPEL engine having to write a container, a deployment model and a suite of 'binding components' to different SOAP stacks, WS-* policies and transports - together with all the runtime management. BPEL engines and orchestration services were one of the primary drivers
