We actually considered this idea in the early phases of Sandesha2. After
some discussions we thought of going for a Axis2 based one so that we can
use all the features that are readily available with Axis2. These included
the context hierarchy, pause/resume functionality, Messages Receivers, AXIOM
etc.

Chamikara


On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Just FYI:  I'm also quite interested in the idea of a "generic" RM engine
> that could be plugged in to various stacks/providers.   Things like WSS4J
> and Neethi have been a big help to CXF (and probably others) specifically
> because they were "generic" enough to be used outside of Axis.     In the
> case of WSS4J, it has actually helped the WSS4J community as developers
> working on CXF stuff have started contributing to WSS4J as well.   Fred
> Dushin is now a committer on WSS4J specifically due to work integrating it
> with CXF.  Sandesha could potentially benefit similarly if it can become
> generic enough to not be considered "just a RM plugin to Axis 2".
> Basically, this could be an opportunity to expand the Sandesha community,
> and that's a good thing.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> pzfreo wrote:
> >
> > David
> >
> > I want to make it clear that I'm *strongly* hoping that there will be
> > greater involvement than just one person.
> >
> > I also *really* like the idea of building an RM implementation that
> > has a core model that is not dependent around a specific stack (Axis2,
> > CXF). I have always believed that there is a space for a really stable
> > and performant WSRM messaging engine and the Sandesha model - where
> > the stack is in control and the messaging engine is "just" a set of
> > handlers just doesn't feel to me like it can compete with a pure
> > messaging option like ActiveMQ or QPid. So in many ways, starting from
> > WSRM and treating the problem as "how to build a messaging engine that
> > also happens to be able to fit into Axis2" would be very interesting
> > to me.
> >
> > I am actually not against having an incubator proposal. The only
> > challenge with the Incubator is that:
> > 1) the incubator is fundamentally designed to bootstrap new
> > communities. If there is an existing community already then it doesn't
> > necessarily work. I would rather have this discussion on sandesha-dev
> > than have to somehow encourage everyone from sandesha-dev to start
> > paying attention to a new list.
> > 2) The incubator is also about how to get non-Apache members involved.
> > So far everyone interested in this is already a committer in Apache.
> > So in fact, labs.apache.org is more appropriate.
> > 3) The incubator is a hassle. Its a hassle for good reasons and I
> > strongly support it. But if you don't need that hassle, then you
> > shouldn't take it!
> >
> > How would a design that works across both CXF and Axis2 work? Its an
> > intriguing idea.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:02 PM, David Illsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Glen. I didn't think there was any consensus from the previous
> >>> discussion (does the word dissensus exist?) :)
> >>>
> >>> I am actually pretty happy to do either, I think each approach has +s
> >>> and -s.
> >>>
> >>> On the side of starting from the Mercury codebase, Amila has got it to
> >>> a point where it satisfies the 1.0 spec, including Replay.
> >>> On the other hand, Mercury doesn't yet implement 1.1 or
> >>> MakeConnection, and also it doesn't support transactions yet, so there
> >>> are some fairly large aspects still to be coded. And starting afresh
> >>> might well get more involvement from the wider community which I think
> >>> has been the main pushback on this proposal so far.
> >>
> >> Clearly new code developed here will have far fewer legal issues (e.g.
> >> the submitted Mercury has a hard LGPL dependency which would need
> >> ironed out), and would hopefully have a cleaner state machine model -
> >> the Mercury one seems to have compromised for reasons which are pretty
> >> opaque.
> >>
> >>> I guess one open question is - who is willing to put in the effort to
> >>> work on this?! If it's just Amila, then starting afresh won't be much
> >>> benefit, because he will be happier to keep working from the code he
> >>> has already built.
> >>
> >> I'd certainly be interested in being involved in a new codebase, but
> >> the amount of time I'd have to devote to it would be limited. If it's
> >> just Amila, then my "Apache Way Sense" tingles to suggest that this
> >> isn't really going anywhere in Apache, and probably shouldn't.
> >>
> >> These 2 questions (legal and community) are some of the reasons why
> >> the Incubator exists, and sort of points me back in that direction.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> P.S. In writing this, it occurred to me that trying to write a common
> >> WS-RM kernel that could be used with CXF and Axis2 might be a good
> >> target, and that too, might point to the Incubator to help build a
> >> broader community (not a fully formed thought though)
> >>
> >> P.P.S. I really like "dissensus"
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--Mercury-Proposal-tp17790601p17828246.html
> Sent from the Apache Sandesha mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to