Ruwan, no one is going to (or even ABLE to, for that matter) force the
Synapse team to do anything. We're trying to work together here, and
build a system of interacting parts that work well together for the
largest possible number of satisfied users (sounds like some companies I
know :)). I'm a commiter on both projects, and I'm trying to convince
you that this might be a good move for everyone.
Synapse *is* building Axis2 transports - that's the long and the short
of it. It's fine if Synapse wants to keep those transports under
Synapse, and it's fine if we move them into commons Transports, the
world won't end either way.
Personally, I think it's vastly preferable to work on these together as
Axis2/WS components, and try to make them as generally useful as
possible. If there are particular ones that are truly Synapse specific
then by all means, keep them in Synapse. But please note that if the
generally useful ones are in Synapse, that means that if there's a
problem using one of them in a non-Synapse Axis2 situation, the Axis2
team would have exactly the same issues trying to get the Synapse team
to fix it.... Wouldn't it be better to have one place where both teams
can work on them?
Re: the earlier mail, I wasn't involved in that earlier thread but I
have always been +1 to getting the transports in Axis2 into a separate
module, because it's important that they be pluggable components.
Thanks,
--Glen
Ruwan Linton wrote:
Dims,
If the axis2 community had agreed to do that then one of the core
members of the axis2 team should do that, (we don't want to move the
code inside axis2 and mess with your project, would you like me moving
the transports out from axis2 kernel??? also with the objections in that
thread), but as you can clearly see there were tons of objections and no
one was ready to move them out except for Deepal and Sanjiva? Again I
agree there was no vote, but that did not happen....
Thanks,
Ruwan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Asankha,
FWIW,
1) I see a +1 from Deepal and Dr. Sanjiva
2) No one did a -1
3) There was no VOTE
So, where's the beef? AFAICT, No one objected to someone else doing
the work :)
So all i can see is an implicit and not to mention unilateral
decision to fork the code and leave the copy in Axis2 stale.
- -- dims
Asankha C. Perera wrote:
| Check this thread
|
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/synapse-dev/200710.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
| as well titled "Getting axis2 transport out from the kernel"
|
| asankha
|
| Davanum Srinivas wrote:
|> Ruwan,
|>
|> All i see is some discussion, which happens on a topic
|>
|> http://marc.info/?t=119684680300006&r=1&w=3
<http://marc.info/?t=119684680300006&r=1&w=3>
|>
|> - Where is the push back? From who?
|> - Where is the VOTE?
|> - Where is a -1?
|>
|> thanks,
|> dims
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFIDlCRgNg6eWEDv1kRAuSDAKCtn+NYtfbFSiR/qXd4wncGymFhywCeNBjU
86McoG01Pp5nJ2ahQFYJrk0=
=kPhE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Ruwan Linton
http://www.wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
