On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Dims has asked to see some progress on the Tuscany community front. I
have taken these artifacts down for now.
Jeremy, on this and the Tuscany SCA Java kernel, what is your take
on the
effect of the release vis-a-vis community, and on the Tuscany
community in
general?
Dims has a thread on community reconciliation so I'll limit this to
the effect of these releases.
In r1.0 of the SCA spec there were some significant, incompatible
changes in the Java APIs compared to the r0.95 version of the spec.
We have an independent version of the classes for those APIs in the
project (to my knowledge there is no compiled version available yet
from the spec group). The community did an extensive review of our
version against the draft spec and voted to release our version.
There was some concern over what version number we would assign.
Personally, I think having a version of the APIs from the spec as
Java code under AL rather than text in a PDF is a very valuable
resource for the general community. Short of finding a discrepancy
with the published spec, this is a stable artifact.
For the kernel, we had discussed doing a release of the kernel in
early Jan and there was general agreement on that[1]. However, there
were some subsequent changes in the programming models in the spec
and the implementation needed to be changed to match. That was quite
disruptive and delayed the release until early March.
Personally, I think having a release available that allows people to
write components against the revised programming models and then run
them in Tuscany will encourage them to try it out, give us feedback,
and offer them an easy way to contribute to the community. I hope
this leads to more independent developers.
We knew the kernel changes would be disruptive and discussed creating
a branch to provide a stable base for developing extensions and
plugins[2]. This didn't work very well, leading to frustration in the
community.
Shortly after a wiki page appeared to capture requirements[3] which
initially looked like a product feature/priority matrix (page
revision 5 for example), followed by a proposal for an alternative
release in March with different functionality from the release
already in progress[4]. Shortly after another branch was created to
support stabilization for that alternative but since then there has
been no discussion about actually performing a release from it.
Personally, I think the presence of that branch and the substantial
new development that has gone on there has not acted as a release
valve but has been very divisive in the community.
--
Jeremy
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/
gmane.comp.apache.webservices.tuscany.devel/12250
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg13075.html
[3] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANY/Feature+areas
+and+what+folks+are+working+on
[4] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg13643.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
