Hi, Robert --
> there are different paths to unification. it's not always best to sit down
> and try to come up with single grand unification strategy first. equally,
> it's often not best to ignore the question entirely. it is often hard to hit
> on the best design right away and then contrasting
On 2/18/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
> not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
i'm not sure that james is being negative: just excitable :)
there are different paths to unification. it's not always bes
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> >Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
> >not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
>
> I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
> the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
See
http:/
Technical decisions do not belong to the PMC/PPMC. Nor do they belong
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's get the ball rolling and attack these on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/20/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> > Why are you being so negat
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
Being negat
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
Being negative for one second...i can safely say that in the worst
case scenario - Sybase and PXE folks do have other choices
(codehaus,sf etc...) as they own the copyright to the code t
2006/2/18, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > - If we want to release something now, is it ok to have two separate
> > codebases under the same project?
>
> Yes; lots of other projects do this already. (Agila, Axis, Geronimo etc)
Hi James,
I don't understand your example of Geronimo as a pr
> First, what is the goal of the Ode project?
My preference would be on building, striclty speaking, a BPEL engine.
The whole BPM space is cluttered with different paradigms (classic
workflow, orchestration, document-style workflow...) and specs. BPEL
seems to be getting accepted as THE standard f
On 18 Feb 2006, at 04:26, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Replied to on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please move discussion to that list.
The one comment to which I'll reply in general, as it effects multiple
projects, is:
The only issue is users of Sybase or PXE will want milestone builds
so they can test again
On 17 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Ismael Ghalimi wrote:
Team,
Before we decide to put both codebases under the same project or under
separate projects, I would like to ask a couple of clarifying
questions.
First, what is the goal of the Ode project? Is it to develop an
implementation of the BPEL spe
Alex Boisvert wrote:
> 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?
Please feel free to pursue this discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the
Replied to on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please move discussion to that list.
The one comment to which I'll reply in general, as it effects multiple
projects, is:
> The only issue is users of Sybase or PXE will want milestone builds
> so they can test against the incubating code & to give us feedback
> t
On Friday 17 February 2006 23:56, James Strachan wrote:
> So I'm wondering if it might make sense to start the incubation
> process as an umbrella project;
"Umbrella" doesn't sound right at all to a layman like me.
Use a single trunk, single build root, perhaps many modules, and do the "IBM
st
Team,
Before we decide to put both codebases under the same project or under
separate projects, I would like to ask a couple of clarifying questions.
First, what is the goal of the Ode project? Is it to develop an
implementation of the BPEL specification, or is it to develop a process
engine that
Hi Paul
On 17 Feb 2006, at 18:44, Paul Brown wrote:
Then inside the Ode podling we figure out over time what BPEL stuff
we can merge etc. Over time the Twister code could merge/move into
Ode. BPM code from Ode could move into Agila. Or we can merge
everything into Ode, or Agila can become the BP
Hi, James --
> How about this for an idea of how we can get started (particularly if
> the thought of another Jakarta Commons-like project scared some
> people off :)...
No comment.
> Then inside the Ode podling we figure out over time what BPEL stuff
> we can merge etc. Over time the Twister co
Looks like it's time for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Noel, is that setup yet?
thanks,
dims
On 2/17/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about this for an idea of how we can get started (particularly if
> the thought of another Jakarta Commons-like project scared some
> people off :)...
>
>
How about this for an idea of how we can get started (particularly if
the thought of another Jakarta Commons-like project scared some
people off :)...
Agila already has 2 codebases inside it today; the original BPM and
Twister BPEL.
So how about we start the Ode podling with the same stru
On 17 Feb 2006, at 12:58, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
My concern is that the proposed path
I wasn't proposing a specific path, just highlighting issues we'll
have if we assume the "only one engine" approach.
is one where there's little
convergence in the near term
FWIW convergence will h
Even when we were thinking about the ServiceMix project, I was not thinking
that using Sybase Ode with ServiceMix implied a tight binding; there was
agreement to avoid tight couplings and it would go against the grain of JBI
anyway. ServiceMix usage was just an example of a container using Ode.
O
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
I totally agree these codebases are large and complicated (remember I
was the one who was surprised how fast people found that the Sybase
codebase was nice and cool). If you really think the best solution is
not to force them to merge then let's not go down the singl
My concern is that the proposed path is one where there's little
convergence in the near term and where the single incubating project
releases multiple files on their own schedules. That's fine, but that's
not one project.
What's the point of being one project if there's no viable plan to make
the
Would it not be more expedient to have Ode as an umbrella project -
but the goal would to be to try and find commonality between all the
projects and see it's possible to merge?
It's a complex problem - no doubt (not because the individual code
bases are complex - but they are completely diff
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:52 +, James Strachan wrote:
>
> Integrating the two code bases together is gonna be a slow, iterative
s/two/three/.
> process; we're talking complex code here. It could be that to start
> with things are completely separate, after 6 months they are 10%
> common
On 16 Feb 2006, at 22:40, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
+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 tha
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?
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:
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 w
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 projec
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.
al
+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
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 l
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 int
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
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 & sof
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
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 sim
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 pri
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 t
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. Fe
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
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 develop
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
It's all good news for the community at large!
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 en
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 throug
45 matches
Mail list logo
