Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome.

sounds like a worthwhile initiative

i like the idea but i do wonder a little whether the practical scope
of the project needs some more rounding out

AFAICT (hopefully the committers will jump in and correct any
misunderstandings) the project seems likely to consist of independent
products, each (ideally) corresponding to a suite of applications
target described by a sort-of-specification. scaling up growth by the
addition of new applications to a suite should be easy to manage.

the scope's really pretty broad so i think a little more detail about
scaling out would be useful: how would stonehenge approach adding new
suites especially when donated from outside the developers group?

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Ruwan Linton]

+1, this seems to be interesting

Thanks,
Ruwan

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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]
>
>


-- 
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Paul Fremantle]

Robert

> sounds like a worthwhile initiative
Thanks for the feedback!

> i like the idea but i do wonder a little whether the practical scope
> of the project needs some more rounding out

I agree it would make sense to help tie down what would make this a
successful project, release, etc.
Any thoughts on how to make this more concrete?

> AFAICT (hopefully the committers will jump in and correct any
> misunderstandings) the project seems likely to consist of independent
> products, each (ideally) corresponding to a suite of applications
> target described by a sort-of-specification.

Yes.

> the scope's really pretty broad so i think a little more detail about
> scaling out would be useful: how would stonehenge approach adding new
> suites especially when donated from outside the developers group?

I guess I imagined that there would be two approaches. One is that
someone might develop this outside of Stonehenge and then do a grant.
However, I would expect a more likely approach is that someone would
contribute via the normal JIRA / patch process. Do you see any issues
with either of these?

Thanks
Paul

-- 
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]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

Paul Fremantle wrote:

the scope's really pretty broad so i think a little more detail about
scaling out would be useful: how would stonehenge approach adding new
suites especially when donated from outside the developers group?


I guess I imagined that there would be two approaches. One is that
someone might develop this outside of Stonehenge and then do a grant.
However, I would expect a more likely approach is that someone would
contribute via the normal JIRA / patch process. Do you see any issues
with either of these?


I actually expect that the way a true community will form around this 
project is when the next application is something that is born out of 
Stonehenge itself .. that is, someone proposes an idea and then we discuss 
it, refine it, develop an architecture, document it and implement it in 17 
different ways. In that case there could be external contribs and 
JIRA/patch contribs too but most would be by project committers directly 
writing the code.


Sanjiva.
--
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/

Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Jim Jagielski]

On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:


I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.

Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
practise and interoperability.

The full proposal is here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal

As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
further mentors are more than welcome!



Upon thinking about it, and talking with others, I really believe
that Stonehenge had the potential of being an extremely cool
effort. Not only for the code aspects, but even more importantly
the impact it could have in unifying SOA. Just like httpd allowed
HTTP to grow, by being a ref implementation, Stonehenge can allow
the same sort of thing with SOA.

+1

And please sign me up as a mentor! :)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Senaka Fernando]

Hi Paul,

Seems that this would become the most happening WS project @ Apache in the
future.

+1,
I'm interested.

Regards,
Senaka

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> FYI
>
> Please jump in on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you are interested in this
> proposal.
>
> Thanks
> Paul
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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]
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Alex Boisvert]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Upon thinking about it, and talking with others, I really believe
> that Stonehenge had the potential of being an extremely cool
> effort. Not only for the code aspects, but even more importantly
> the impact it could have in unifying SOA.


I completely agree.

alex

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Matthieu Riou]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>

Looks good to me. I've added myself to the list of mentors :)

Cheers,
Matthieu


>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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]
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Paul Fremantle]

> Looks good to me. I've added myself to the list of mentors :)

Thanks!!

Paul

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Afkham Azeez]

+1 for the proposal

Azeez

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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]
>
>


-- 
Thanks
Afkham Azeez

Blog: http://afkham.org
Developer Portal: http://www.wso2.org
WSAS Blog: http://wso2wsas.blogspot.com
Company: http://wso2.com
GPG Fingerprint: 643F C2AF EB78 F886 40C9  B2A2 4AE2 C887 665E 0760

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Ruwan Linton]

+1 and I have added my self to the committers

Thanks,
Ruwan

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>
> Paul
>
> --
> 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]
>
>


-- 
Ruwan Linton
http://wso2.org - "Oxygenating the Web Services Platform"
http://ruwansblog.blogspot.com/

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[ant elder]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose Stonehenge as an incubator proposal.
>
> Stonehenge is a set of example applications for Service Oriented
> Architecture that spans languages and platforms and demonstrates best
> practise and interoperability.
>
> The full proposal is here: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal
>
> As ever, all feedback, positive or negative is welcome. Also, any
> further mentors are more than welcome!
>

This sounds like it has a lot of potential. Looks like you've plenty
of mentors now but I'll forward it to the Tuscany mailing lists to see
if we can get some Tuscany folks to help with showing Tuscany/SCA in
the Stonehenge apps.

   ..ant

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] Stonehenge

[Kamaljit Bath]

Microsoft is happy to support Stonehenge. We believe that the intent of the 
project is to focus on building a set of sample applications based on approved 
W3C and OASIS standard protocols with a goal of helping increase 
interoperability between different implementations on various platforms. We 
think that such a project could provide developers with a helpful starting 
place for their tasks by providing guidelines and reference implementations on 
various platforms representing industry best practices. In addition, the 
project may also help identify ways to improve interoperability and industry 
collaboration to help improve and promote cutting-edge architecture related to 
multi-tier SOA applications.



Our customers have told us that their developers value sample applications that 
may be used to help improve complex web services implementations, and that they 
need more information and access to best practices related to such sample 
applications. The Stonehenge project proposal offers an exciting opportunity 
for industry participants to build sample applications that could lead to 
increased interoperability between different platforms.  We are enthusiastic 
about the potential of the Stonehenge project, and are optimistic that the 
scope of the project will allow for our continued participation and support of 
the project.



I look forward to helping other participants define the scope of the project in 
a manner that encourages others to participate as well.

Kamaljit Bath
Principal Program Manager
Microsoft Interoperability Strategy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
425-703-3419

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ...The full proposal is here: 
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..

That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
open source tools.

We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
benefit from the project as well.

As the project is about interoperability, that's somewhat obvious
anyway, but still worth mentioning IMHO.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Paul Fremantle]

Bertrand

Great feedback. I think we should keep a clear statement in the SVN
and distros that identifies which parts of the project use which
dependencies. I also think we should structure the build so that each
different framework implementation of each application is a separate
build target. We can then put together an overall build that does
cross-framework build and test.

Thanks
Paul


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...The full proposal is here: 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
>
> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
> open source tools.
>
> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
> benefit from the project as well.
>
> As the project is about interoperability, that's somewhat obvious
> anyway, but still worth mentioning IMHO.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> 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]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Kamaljit Bath]

+1

-Original Message-
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:22 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

Bertrand

Great feedback. I think we should keep a clear statement in the SVN
and distros that identifies which parts of the project use which
dependencies. I also think we should structure the build so that each
different framework implementation of each application is a separate
build target. We can then put together an overall build that does
cross-framework build and test.

Thanks
Paul


On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...The full proposal is here: 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
>
> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
> open source tools.
>
> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
> benefit from the project as well.
>
> As the project is about interoperability, that's somewhat obvious
> anyway, but still worth mentioning IMHO.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> 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]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

On 11/12/08, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ...The full proposal is here:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
>
> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
> open source tools.

good point

apache has developed open source Java stuff for years, even when it
was a closed, proprietary platform. but the status of java (closed but
no charge) was well and widely known, and open source tools were
developed to build and test. this is probably less true in this case.

IMHO effective communication to new users and developers will be
important, and contributors need to be comfortable working with open
source people and tools. so i'd like to throw out a few points for
discussion...

1. There should be no barrier for ports of open source code dependent
on a proprietary platform to an open one (for example .net to -
hypothetically - mono). One great thing about FOSS is that the code
gains a life independent of it's creators. I think that everyone
involved needs to be comfortable about this possibility, and accept
that it's fine to happen on shore (as part of the project) rather than
off shore.

2. when developing open source software for proprietary platforms,
using open, publicly document APIs is important. AIUI this is the case
for .NET

3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may
prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open
source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in
and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to
supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers
stepped up to create and maintain them.

4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
important that contributors understand this and don't just start
diving in. it may be better to start off shore.

> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
> benefit from the project as well.

pioneering something like
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling might be useful more
widely

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Paul Fremantle]

Robert

Excellent points:

>>> ...The full proposal is here:
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
>>
>> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
>> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
>> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
>> open source tools.
>
> good point
>
> apache has developed open source Java stuff for years, even when it
> was a closed, proprietary platform. but the status of java (closed but
> no charge) was well and widely known, and open source tools were
> developed to build and test. this is probably less true in this case.

The only pay-for requirement is a Windows OS to run the .NET tools at
this point. So for a pure OSS developer, there will be parts of the
project which will not be buildable, until MONO implements those
parts. However, many Apache projects have Windows builds (e.g. Apache
HTTPD), so this won't be unique.

> 1. There should be no barrier for ports of open source code dependent
> on a proprietary platform to an open one (for example .net to -
> hypothetically - mono).

+1. I believe that everything Stonehenge is potentially doing is
covered by Microsoft's OSPA. Maybe Kamal can comment.

> One great thing about FOSS is that the code
> gains a life independent of it's creators. I think that everyone
> involved needs to be comfortable about this possibility, and accept
> that it's fine to happen on shore (as part of the project) rather than
> off shore.

+1

> 2. when developing open source software for proprietary platforms,
> using open, publicly document APIs is important. AIUI this is the case
> for .NET

+1

> 3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may
> prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open
> source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in
> and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to
> supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers
> stepped up to create and maintain them.

I believe that Microsoft already makes all the requirements to build
and test the .NET code available to Apache Committers via the MSDN
subscriptions it offers. So that is at least a help, if not the final
answer.


> 4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
> important that contributors understand this and don't just start
> diving in. it may be better to start off shore.

+1, tho again an MSDN license should help.

>> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
>> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
>> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
>> benefit from the project as well.
>
> pioneering something like
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#labeling might be useful more
> widely

+1!

Paul
> -
> 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]

RE: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Michael Champion]

I'd also point out that there are free SDKs and Express versions of most of the 
Microsoft development tools [1], targeted at non-commercial developers.  See  
[2] for a neutral discussion of what has been left out of the Express editions.

So, while these tools are not open source, there are no barriers that I know of 
against using them to build and test open source software.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/express/ (Designed for, but usable without 
Silverlight)
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Express

-Original Message-
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:15 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge


> 3. payment for development tools to contribute to the project may
> prove a barrier to new contributions. apache has always used open
> source build and test tools. this allows anyone with energy to dive in
> and contribute. i would hope that there would be no barriers to
> supporting open source build and test environments if volunteers
> stepped up to create and maintain them.

I believe that Microsoft already makes all the requirements to build
and test the .NET code available to Apache Committers via the MSDN
subscriptions it offers. So that is at least a help, if not the final
answer.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> ...The full proposal is here: 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StonehengeProposal..
> 
> That says "future contributions could depend on proprietary systems
> such as Microsoft .Net or commercial JEE servers", which IIUC means
> that some parts of Stonehenge might not be buildable or testable using
> open source tools.

That is not a problem, if the project's aim is to provide similar
functionality to users of many different tools.  The fact is that most
of the logic running under commercial JEE can likely be built using either
open JEE frameworks such as Geronimo or Glassfish, and that .NET tools are
free (while you may need to pay to run such an operating system).  Of course
that doesn't preclude at least proving up the implementation under the likes
of mono :)

> We certainly already have some such code in our projects, and I'm no
> against that - but I'd like the Stonehenge people to keep such parts
> well separated, to allow people who only use open source tools to
> benefit from the project as well.
> 
> As the project is about interoperability, that's somewhat obvious
> anyway, but still worth mentioning IMHO.

I'm satisfied this isn't a showstopper to this effort.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[William A. Rowe, Jr.]

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> 
> 4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
> important that contributors understand this and don't just start
> diving in. it may be better to start off shore.

As a US based Deleware 501(c)3 that wouldn't protect us.

As far as continuous integration solutions, I believe we can work with
the companies to ensure sufficient (gratis) licenses to do so on the ASF
infrastructure.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Sanjiva Weerawarana]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:

4. running continuous integration on shore may require licenses. it's
important that contributors understand this and don't just start
diving in. it may be better to start off shore.


As a US based Deleware 501(c)3 that wouldn't protect us.


Plus even "off shore" there are IP protections and legal requirements to 
use licensed software! Promoting piracy is not a good thing .. but I don't 
think that's what Robert was saying at all!



As far as continuous integration solutions, I believe we can work with
the companies to ensure sufficient (gratis) licenses to do so on the ASF
infrastructure.


+1.

Sanjiva.
--
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/

Blog: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Michael Champion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd also point out that there are free SDKs and Express versions of most of 
> the Microsoft development tools [1], targeted at non-commercial developers.  
> See  [2] for a neutral discussion of what has been left out of the Express 
> editions.
>
> So, while these tools are not open source, there are no barriers that I know 
> of against using them to build and test open source software.
>
> [1] http://www.microsoft.com/express/ (Designed for, but usable without 
> Silverlight)
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Express

great

creating a short guide to getting involved in open source on .NET
might help stronehenge encourage contributors

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Senaka Fernando]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Michael Champion
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd also point out that there are free SDKs and Express versions of most
> of the Microsoft development tools [1], targeted at non-commercial
> developers.  See  [2] for a neutral discussion of what has been left out of
> the Express editions.
> >
> > So, while these tools are not open source, there are no barriers that I
> know of against using them to build and test open source software.
> >
> > [1] http://www.microsoft.com/express/ (Designed for, but usable without
> Silverlight)
> > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Express
>
> great
>
> creating a short guide to getting involved in open source on .NET
> might help stronehenge encourage contributors


+1. Also, there are some ASF projects that use .NET technologies as of
present (ex:- Lucene, [1]), that might IMHO, be worth taking a look at.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/lucene.net.html

Regards,
Senaka

>
>
> - robert
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] Stonehenge

[Robert Burrell Donkin]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Senaka Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Michael Champion
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'd also point out that there are free SDKs and Express versions of most
>> of the Microsoft development tools [1], targeted at non-commercial
>> developers.  See  [2] for a neutral discussion of what has been left out of
>> the Express editions.
>> >
>> > So, while these tools are not open source, there are no barriers that I
>> know of against using them to build and test open source software.
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.microsoft.com/express/ (Designed for, but usable without
>> Silverlight)
>> > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Visual_Studio_Express
>>
>> great
>>
>> creating a short guide to getting involved in open source on .NET
>> might help stronehenge encourage contributors
>
>
> +1. Also, there are some ASF projects that use .NET technologies as of
> present (ex:- Lucene, [1]), that might IMHO, be worth taking a look at.

yeh - once stonehenge has a good page, the mentors should probably
look to move the content into the apache development site
(http://www.apache.org/dev) and link in.

- robert

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]