Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Well, Meeraj and Jim did the real work. OK, the circle is now complete :) On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote: Ta, Actually Jeremy and Jim did most of it. -Original Message- From: Kevin Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 March 2007 20:44 To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo Jim and Meeraj, Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped? --Kevin Jim Marino wrote: Hi, We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to the list outlining how it went... We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. My observations are: - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a lot of extra "clutter". - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the Controller was cool. - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. Jim - 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] This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs * You can find us at www.voca.com * This communication is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above immediately. Registered in England, No 1023742, Registered Office: Voca Limited Drake House, Three Rivers Court, Homestead Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1FX. United Kingdom VAT No. 226 6112 87 This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. - 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: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Ta, Actually Jeremy and Jim did most of it. >> -Original Message- >> From: Kevin Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 22 March 2007 20:44 >> To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org >> Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo >> >> Jim and Meeraj, >> Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped? >> --Kevin >> >> >> Jim Marino wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send >> a mail to >> > the list outlining how it went... >> > >> > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up >> against Rod >> > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was >> > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I >> gave the talk >> > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction >> > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for >> staying up to >> > an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery >> > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. >> > >> > My observations are: >> > >> > - After speaking with people after the presentation, >> feedback on the >> > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the >> > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What >> people got >> > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to >> > remote nodes and have a representation of their service >> network. In >> > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people >> said they need >> > what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. >> > >> > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted >> > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed >> wiring". Related >> > to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's >> old-hat) and just >> > seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. >> > >> > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to >> Microsoft >> > WCF >> > >> > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks >> and support >> > for components written in different languages, particularly C++. >> > >> > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their >> > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select >> > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. >> > >> > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted >> choice in >> > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that >> we are not >> > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA >> integration. >> > (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). >> > Spring integration was also popular. >> > >> > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person >> > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to >> use and not a >> > lot of extra "clutter". >> > >> > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. >> I basically >> > described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how >> a component >> > implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and >> > point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the >> > Controller was cool. >> > >> > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a >> > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I >> didn't get >> > any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE >> > application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a >> > number of talks on server-side OSGi. >> > >> > My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - >> > 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] >> >> >> This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs * You can find us at www.voca.com * This communication is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above immediately. Registered in England, No 1023742, Registered Office: Voca Limited Drake House, Three Rivers Court, Homestead Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1FX. United Kingdom VAT No. 226 6112 87 This message has been checked for all email viruses by MessageLabs. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Kevin Williams wrote: Jim and Meeraj, Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped? --Kevin Thanks, I don't think it was. I mentioned I will try to see if I can reprint copies of the slides. BTW, I wanted to also say Meeraj and Jeremy were the guys that need to get most of the credit with the effort they put in getting the demo functional. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Jim and Meeraj, Congratulations! Any chance the presentation was taped? --Kevin Jim Marino wrote: Hi, We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to the list outlining how it went... We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. My observations are: - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a lot of extra "clutter". - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the Controller was cool. - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. Jim - 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: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Jim, Congratulations and Thanks for a nice summary. Are you planning to record the presentation and demo? It would be nice to have it posted somewhere, maybe on theserverside.com? Unfortunately, I don't think I can publish the slides on my own as it is part of the Serverside conference. Hopefully, they will publish them after the conference is over. I will also inquire if I can post them to the web site but I imagine they won't want me to. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Jim Marino wrote: Hi, We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to the list outlining how it went... We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. My observations are: - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a lot of extra "clutter". - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the Controller was cool. - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. Jim Jim, Congratulations and Thanks for a nice summary. Are you planning to record the presentation and demo? It would be nice to have it posted somewhere, maybe on theserverside.com? -- Jean-Sebastien - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
On 3/22/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Simon, My reply to Mario has all the detail to run the demo. Ta Meeraj -Original Message- From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:00 PM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo On 3/22/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Simon, > > All the work that was done for the demo has been committed. I posted a > set of build instructions to get the demo running for Mario. However, > the information is scattered across multiple emails. I can collate > them and repost it to the list, if that helps. > > Thanks > Meeraj > > -Original Message- > From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:31 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo > > On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. > > > > - Venkat > > > > On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail > > > to the list outlining how it went... > > > > > > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against > > > Rod > > > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was > > > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the > > > talk > > > > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction > > > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up > > > to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based > > > discovery > > > > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. > > > > > > My observations are: > > > > > > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on > > > the > > > > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the > > > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people > > > got > > > > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to > > > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. > > > In > > > > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they > > > need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. > > > > > > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted > > > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". > > > Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's > > > old-hat) > > > > and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain > references. > > > > > > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to > > > Microsoft > > > > WCF > > > > > > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and > > > support for components written in different languages, > > > particularly > C++. > > > > > > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their > > > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select > > > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. > > > > > > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice > > > in > > > > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are > > > not > > > > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA > > > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used > > > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. > > > > > > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person > > > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and > > > not > > > > a lot of extra "clutter". > > > > > > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I > > > basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and > > > how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. > > > Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire > > > optimization by the Controller was cool. > > > > > > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a > > > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't > > > get any qu
RE: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Simon, My reply to Mario has all the detail to run the demo. Ta Meeraj -Original Message- From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:00 PM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo On 3/22/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Simon, > > All the work that was done for the demo has been committed. I posted a > set of build instructions to get the demo running for Mario. However, > the information is scattered across multiple emails. I can collate > them and repost it to the list, if that helps. > > Thanks > Meeraj > > -Original Message- > From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:31 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo > > On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. > > > > - Venkat > > > > On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail > > > to the list outlining how it went... > > > > > > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against > > > Rod > > > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was > > > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the > > > talk > > > > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction > > > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up > > > to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based > > > discovery > > > > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. > > > > > > My observations are: > > > > > > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on > > > the > > > > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the > > > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people > > > got > > > > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to > > > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. > > > In > > > > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they > > > need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. > > > > > > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted > > > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". > > > Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's > > > old-hat) > > > > and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain > references. > > > > > > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to > > > Microsoft > > > > WCF > > > > > > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and > > > support for components written in different languages, > > > particularly > C++. > > > > > > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their > > > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select > > > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. > > > > > > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice > > > in > > > > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are > > > not > > > > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA > > > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used > > > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. > > > > > > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person > > > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and > > > not > > > > a lot of extra "clutter". > > > > > > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I > > > basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and > > > how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. > > > Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire > > > optimization by the Controller was cool. > > > > > > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a > > > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't > > > get any questions about running Tuscany in a Se
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
On 3/22/07, Meeraj Kunnumpurath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Simon, All the work that was done for the demo has been committed. I posted a set of build instructions to get the demo running for Mario. However, the information is scattered across multiple emails. I can collate them and repost it to the list, if that helps. Thanks Meeraj -Original Message- From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:31 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. > > - Venkat > > On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to > > the list outlining how it went... > > > > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against > > Rod > > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was > > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk > > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction > > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up > > to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery > > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. > > > > My observations are: > > > > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the > > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the > > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got > > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to > > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In > > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they > > need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. > > > > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted > > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". > > Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) > > and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. > > > > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft > > WCF > > > > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and > > support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. > > > > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their > > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select > > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. > > > > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in > > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not > > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA > > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used > > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. > > > > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person > > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not > > a lot of extra "clutter". > > > > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I > > basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how > > a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related > > to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization > > by the Controller was cool. > > > > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a > > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't > > get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or > > J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there > > being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. > > > > My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Jim, Nice one. Thanks for the summary. Did the conference record the talk? Would be good to see it. Noting your comment and recent mails about the last minute changes to get JMS working in short order, is everything checked in that's needed to run the demo? Looking back I see several notes on build instructions and it would be pretty cool to give it a spin. Can I ask a question about support
RE: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Simon, All the work that was done for the demo has been committed. I posted a set of build instructions to get the demo running for Mario. However, the information is scattered across multiple emails. I can collate them and repost it to the list, if that helps. Thanks Meeraj -Original Message- From: Simon Laws [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:31 AM To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. > > - Venkat > > On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to > > the list outlining how it went... > > > > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against > > Rod > > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was > > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk > > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction > > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up > > to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery > > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. > > > > My observations are: > > > > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the > > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the > > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got > > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to > > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In > > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they > > need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. > > > > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted > > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". > > Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) > > and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. > > > > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft > > WCF > > > > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and > > support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. > > > > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their > > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select > > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. > > > > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in > > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not > > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA > > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used > > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. > > > > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person > > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not > > a lot of extra "clutter". > > > > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I > > basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how > > a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related > > to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization > > by the Controller was cool. > > > > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a > > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't > > get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or > > J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there > > being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. > > > > My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Jim, Nice one. Thanks for the summary. Did the conference record the talk? Would be good to see it. Noting your comment and recent mails about the last minute changes to get JMS working in short order, is everything checked in that's needed to run the demo? Looking back I see several notes on build instructions and it would be pretty cool to give it a spin. Can I ask a question about support for components written in different langua
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
On 3/22/07, Venkata Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Jim, Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. - Venkat On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to > the list outlining how it went... > > We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod > (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was > surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk > and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction > seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to > an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery > service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. > > My observations are: > > - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the > value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the > programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got > excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to > remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In > this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need > what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. > > - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted > positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related > to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just > seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. > > - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF > > - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support > for components written in different languages, particularly C++. > > - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their > heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select > alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. > > - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in > was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not > locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA > integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used > without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. > > - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person > mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not > a lot of extra "clutter". > > - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically > described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component > implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and > point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the > Controller was cool. > > - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a > standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get > any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE > application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a > number of talks on server-side OSGi. > > My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. > > Jim > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jim, Nice one. Thanks for the summary. Did the conference record the talk? Would be good to see it. Noting your comment and recent mails about the last minute changes to get JMS working in short order, is everything checked in that's needed to run the demo? Looking back I see several notes on build instructions and it would be pretty cool to give it a spin. Can I ask a question about support for components written in different languages? Did people specifically say they were interested in C++? Did they mention other languages (and, if so, which ones)? Presumably the sweet spot is the ability to show components implemented in various languages all acting as part of a single SCA Domain. How big a deal do you think this ability to be able to draw a "picture" of you heterogeneous service network (in SCDL) vs some of the other things you mention like "standalone edge server" or "selectable bindings". I'm asking this question because, as you know, I like the idea and from your notes it seems the audience likes the idea but I'm interested to know how much interest there was for this vs other things. I imagine, from reading your closing comments, you have a whole stack of ideas now in your head about what needs doing next. This would seem like a great opportunity for us all to look at what technical challenges lie ahead and to have a discussion about how, as a community, we step up to meeting some of them. How do we do this? Do we start some threads on individual items? A thread on the grand plan and then split onto areas of peoples interest. Having this summary is great because is really pushes on what we really need to focus on, i.e. maki
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Hi Jim, Thanks for sharing this information - its really useful. - Venkat On 3/22/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to the list outlining how it went... We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. My observations are: - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a lot of extra "clutter". - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the Controller was cool. - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ServerSide Presentation and Demo
Hi, Jim. Congratulations on the success! The update is very useful for us to get the first-hand information. Thanks, Raymond - Original Message - From: "Jim Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: ServerSide Presentation and Demo Hi, We just finished the ServerSide demo and I figured I send a mail to the list outlining how it went... We had the slot following the opening keynote and were up against Rod (Spring) and Patrick (OpenJPA) as the other two talks. I was surprised to find that the ballroom was pretty full. I gave the talk and the demo showing end-to-end federated deployment and reaction seemed very positive. Meeraj gets the "hero" award for staying up to an obscene hour in the morning to implement a JMS-based discovery service as we encountered last-minute hiccups with JXTA. My observations are: - After speaking with people after the presentation, feedback on the value of SCA was consistent. Specifically, they thought the programming model was nice but not a differentiator. What people got excited about was being able to dynamically provision services to remote nodes and have a representation of their service network. In this respect, I think the demo worked well. Two people said they need what the demo showed for projects they currently have underway. - People asked how SCA is different than Spring. They reacted positively when I said "federation" and "distributed wiring". Related to this, people get dependency injection (i.e. it's old-hat) and just seem to assume that is the way local components obtain references. - People seemed to react positively when I compared SCA to Microsoft WCF - People liked the idea of heterogeneous service networks and support for components written in different languages, particularly C++. - People didn't ask about web services. People were nodding their heads (in agreement) when I talked about having the runtime select alternative bindings such as AMQP and JMS. - People want modularity and choice. Two areas they wanted choice in was databinding and persistence. They liked the fact that we are not locked into one databinding solution and that we have JPA integration. (as an aside, they also liked that SDO can be used without SCA). Spring integration was also popular. - People also liked the idea of a 2MB kernel download. One person mentioned they only want to download what they intend to use and not a lot of extra "clutter". - People wanted to know how SCA is different than an ESB. I basically described it using the switch vs. router metaphor and how a component implementation type can be a proxy for an ESB. Related to this and point-to-point wires, people thought wire optimization by the Controller was cool. - People seemed to be more interested in running Tuscany as a standalone edge server or embedded in an OSGi container. I didn't get any questions about running Tuscany in a Servlet container or J2EE application server. This seems to be consistent with there being a number of talks on server-side OSGi. My big takeway is that we need to make the demo a reality. Jim - 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]
