1. I agree that this code should not be in Apache with a org.wso2 package namespace. 2. I don't agree that the timing of this is so bad. There is always a balance between starting something completely in the open and pushing a finished object onto the community. When Amila started this, it wasn't a conscious decision to replace Sandesha2 - it was simply an experiment. Amila got it to the point where the experiment proved that this particular approach could work and then brought it to the community. And I don't think this code is that complete - there is a lot of work to do on it. To be honest I think there are mixed messages. On the one hand I'm hearing that its too complete and we should have engaged the community earlier. On the other hand I'm hearing that because it doesn't implement 1.1. it still hasn't proven it can be a cleaner design that Sandesha2. Frankly I don't think there is any perfect answer here. 3. Apache has a strong history of allowing multiple implementations of the same thing and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have two implementations of RM. Whether or not Mercury is a "replacement" for Sandesha seems to be something that will only will be decided if the community wants it to be that way. I think its *way* too early to tell at this point if Mercury is going to enthuse the community or not. So far it only implements about half of the features of Sandesha2. 4. I personally think that the right thing to do here is to engage the community. I think the right way to do that is to move the code to org.apache.something, and move the discussions to sandesha-dev with a prefix in the subject like [MERCURY]. This is what we have done time and again. Either it will engage a wider audience in the design and implementation or it won't, but unless we do this we can't know. 5. I don't think it really matters whether Sandesha2 has bugs or not. The question in my mind is whether this new implementation can be kept cleaner, faster, and more maintainable than Sandesha2. If it can be then it will gain support, and if not it won't. Its as simple as that. But I honestly believe in the Apache way, and I don't think it will end up better without the input of this community, who frankly know WSRM implementation as well as anyone in the world. 6. I *COMPLETELY* disagree with Ant's point about announcements. This is a module that works with Axis2 and there is absolutely nothing wrong with announcing it to the Axis2 community with an [ANN] header. That would be true if this was a commercial extension to Axis2. But this is an Apache Licensed open source project. Further, a version of this code has been donated to Apache. So unless I have somehow an utter misunderstanding of Apache's mailing lists I cannot see any reason at all not to post this announcement.
Paul On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:18 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Glen Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: > > <snip> > >> >> > While that may be true, I'm disappointed that the work moved so far >> > forward before being brought to the Sandesha community, and I would >> > *really* like to find some navigable path that brings us eventually to a >> > single implementation of RM-over-Axis2, in Apache. > > Agree with that completely, this seems a really sad thing to have happened. > Is there really no way to get Sandesha working with SecureRM over SMTP, > there didn't seem to be much discussion about what the issues are with doing > that? > > While things are as they are I do think things like Mercury announcements > should be kept off the Apache mailing lists, so no more posts like: > http://apache.markmail.org/message/ounhpi54rx543vqw > > ...ant > > -- Paul Fremantle Co-Founder and CTO, WSO2 Apache Synapse PMC Chair OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
