Chamikara I think we are a long way from a feature complete Mercury :-) I also think you should be thinking of other criteria than just performance: code cleanliness, maintainability, community involvement, stability, production quality, all these and more are criteria on which people will judge whether this is a better implementation than Sandesha2.
Paul On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Chamikara Jayalath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] >> > > -- 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]
