On Wed April 22 2009 1:07:39 pm Greg Truty wrote: > Hello all, I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for > Apache Wink, stand-alone REST toolkit supporting JAX-RS (JSR 311), a > client runtime and test cases (as well as other items). The full proposal > can be found on the wiki at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WinkProposal > . We are looking forward to all questions and feedback, positive or > negative. In addition, we welcome all participants and mentors to help > support the effort.
I know you are expecting a response from me (I've talked to Dims about this already) so I might as well get it out of the way.... :-) So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation. You looked at Apache CXF but it didn't completely meet your needs. Instead of engaging with CXF (there wasn't any discussion about any of this on the CXF dev/users list) to enhance CXF, you fork it in house and update it and enhance it outside of any community. Now you want to push it back into Apache, but not with any of the CXF community. I just wanted to get that out in the open. Two implementations isn't a bad thing (think Axis2 and CXF) but the way this was approached is a concern. Next come the hard questions: 1) The proposal mentions it's already JAX-RS TCK compliant. From a JAX-RS standpoint, were do you see the community "growing"? I've seen several projects that come in with their stated goals already "complete" and have a tough time getting new committers. 2) What "advantages" would it have over CXF's implementation and/or Jersey? (apart from the TCK compliance which CXF is working on now that we got the TCK) Since Wink would be Apache licensed, I'd expect anything "cool" would be pulled into CXF anyway if possible. One advantage of multiple Apache licensed implementations is that great ideas can also be pulled back and forth. :-) Obviously, I haven't seen the Wink code so I don't know how easy/hard that would be. One "question" I have when I see projects with duplicate goals is to see if the differences could be resolved to a point where only one project is needed. I remember with CXF and Axis 2 sitting down in a room at some conference several years ago (ApacheCon Austin maybe? Don't really remember.) with Dan Diephouse, myself, Glen Daniels, Sanjiva and several others involved with both projects to try and resolve any issues and possibly merge things. In that meeting, we really did conclude we had strong differences in opinions on designs, priorities, and ideas and it really wasn't possible. That is quite OK. At least the discussion occurred. I haven't seen discussions like that with CXF/Wink. I guess from my standpoint, while I'm not "against" the proposal, I'd definitely like to see it have the option of "graduating" via a merger with the CXF implementation and engagements with that community. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
