Hi All, As I mentioned earlied, I am really eager to see Mercury being brought into Apache (either as a branch in Sandesha2 or as a seperate WS project). What I really want to see is a comparison between two implementations. If a feature complete Mercury version outperforms Sandesha2 I would be more than happy to accept it as a replacement for Sandsha2.
Thanks, Chamikara On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No objection at all, as long as its not castrated .. i.e., it must be ok to > release. Is that ok with everyone? > > Sanjiva. > > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > >> Ant >> >> I completely agree. I think the best outcome is to move the code into >> ASF SVN, move the discussion over, and simply treat this as a new and >> different codebase from Sandesha, with no implication about how this >> pans out in the future. >> >> Paul >> >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Just for the record I'd like to point out I've been talking as a WS PMC >>> member. I've no idea what IBMs views are on this and haven't spoken to >>> anyone in IBM about it. Also I'm fine with this code coming into the >>> apache >>> svn, that would be better than being developed at wso2 imho. I do think >>> for >>> now until there's consensus on it there should be no implication yet that >>> its the "next" version, as outline in the rules for revolutions doc. >>> >>> ...ant >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd like to hear what non-IBM Sandesha community members also think >>>> about >>>> this idea. If the entire community doesn't want this code coming here, >>>> well, >>>> then its ABSOLUTELY fine! >>>> >>>> Life will go on .. and if WSO2 wants to it can certainly contrib it and >>>> start an alternative RM impl in Apache too. Apache does not have a >>>> position >>>> saying "only one of one thing". >>>> >>>> Sanjiva. >>>> >>>> Paul Fremantle wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. >>>> Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; >>>> http://www.opensource.lk/ >>>> Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ >>>> Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ >>>> Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > -- > Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D. > Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation; http://www.opensource.lk/ > Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/ > Member; Apache Software Foundation; http://www.apache.org/ > Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa; http://www.cse.mrt.ac.lk/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
