> > How about a BoF around Tuscany so all the folks who have expressed
> > interest and are present can get together for a f2f? I'll be there
> > Monday-Wednesday (no weekend tutorials for me this time) -- I've
> > proposed a timeslot/location on the wiki:
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/apachecon/
I think that we've seen the concerns and satisfied them for those
that are interested (like Roy, Justin, et al). Also, w/ WS now
sponsoring, I think it's all over but the infra work...
geir
On Dec 7, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Just hang in there for a few days. Let's wait
On 12/7/05, Kenneth Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glad to see a strong show of interest from the WS PMC, look forward to
> working more w/ you guys.
>
> How about a BoF around Tuscany so all the folks who have expressed
> interest and are present can get together for a f2f? I'll be there
> Mo
Glad to see a strong show of interest from the WS PMC, look forward to
working more w/ you guys.
How about a BoF around Tuscany so all the folks who have expressed
interest and are present can get together for a f2f? I'll be there
Monday-Wednesday (no weekend tutorials for me this time) -- I've
p
Dims, Jeremy,
once an existing PMC decides to incubate a project there is no need for
the PMC to sign off on that; the project is then automatically in
incubation.
In any case, ack.
Some of the next steps include setting up the neccessary infrastructure.
We've a variety of ways to make a variety
Just hang in there for a few days. Let's wait for any feedback from
incubator PMC, sync up at ApacheCon and move forward from there.
thanks,
-- dims
On 12/7/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > The WS-PMC has voted to accept the re-written Tusc
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The WS-PMC has voted to accept the re-written Tuscany proposal with 11
> +1 votes (and zero -1/+0/-0 votes)
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
Dims
Great, thank you!
I have updated the proposal on the wiki to reflect this result and to
change sponsor from the Incubator
Folks,
The WS-PMC has voted to accept the re-written Tuscany proposal with 11
+1 votes (and zero -1/+0/-0 votes)
Thanks,
dims
On 12/6/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Kenneth Tam wrote:
> > I've rewritten the rationale to be substantially more direct:
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:59 PM, Kenneth Tam wrote:
I've rewritten the rationale to be substantially more direct:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TuscanyProposal
Robert's point is well taken, as we've been socializing this idea in
various circles and justifying a business case was definitely a par
On 6 Dec 2005, at 06:45, Kenneth Tam wrote:
Specifically, I think the goal of providing a language/platform
neutral service assembly layer that's backed by an extensible set of
app developer models (with a shared conceptual framework) for
specific
languages/technologies, is something distinct
On 12/5/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> > >
> > > No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> > > *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> > Specifically, I think the goal of providing a language/platform
> > neutral service assembly layer that's backed by an extensible set of
> > app developer models (with a shared conceptual framework) for specific
> > languages/technologies, is something distinct here. Stuff like
> > figuring ou
On 12/5/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> >
> > No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> > *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> > needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
Roy T.Fielding wrote:
>
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may so
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 07:50 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> It's isn't *that* bad.
:)
Ah, now I remember the beating we got about Synapse .. nice to see other
family members get hammered too ;-). (I think the final word to us was
"you guys should've known better" ;-))
> It includes implementa
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:12:15PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
*actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
needs to match the actual plan, preferably a
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
problem]
Everyone is having mail problems -- the a
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 11:12:15PM -0800, Roy Fielding wrote:
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
[I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
problem]
Everyone is having mail problems -- the apache relay is misbehaving.
Roy Responded :
Sure, b
On 30 Nov 2005, at 20:04, Kenneth Tam wrote:
My take is that the existing codebases involved and the shorter/medium
term problems they're trying to solve are distinct enough that it
makes sense to let them evolve somewhat independently while
encouraging opportunistic integration..
Agreed.
ha
[I'm having mail problems but saw Roy's reply and want to respond,
because this is important, and I want to understand if I grok the
problem]
On Dec 1, 2005, at 6:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
So it's fair to take pot shots at SOA - we all do - but I think
there's an earnest effort he
Am with you Roy :)
-- dims
On 12/1/05, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> >> As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
> >> an amorphous set of marke
On Dec 1, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Now - can someone give me an idea of how "open" the model is? In other words
> are the specifications behind Tuscany open to being modified? Will they be
> submitted to a standards body and in what timeframe? It would be good to
> know that Apache and in particular the co
Firstly I have to say I support this on principle. I think - looking at the
documents briefly - that there is overlap to a number of Apache projects (
e.g. HiveMind),
but I believe in a broad set of components in Apache. I know that the
proposal has a wide variety of experienced Apache committers,
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
Although, calling SOA an architectural style would im
Changshin Lee wrote:
> Quick question - Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208)
> implementation?
>
The design of the code we are contributing is intended to support
multiple container models. At this time there is an implementation of a
very simple Java container but some experiments have be
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=JBI+IBM+BEA :)
On 11/30/05, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208) implementation?
>
> Oddly, IBM is conspicuous by its surprising absence from that JSR's expert
> group.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
IIRC, IBM was part of that EG, but left it.
geir
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208) implementation?
Oddly, IBM is conspicuous by its surprising absence from that JSR's
expert
group.
--- Noel
--
> Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208) implementation?
Oddly, IBM is conspicuous by its surprising absence from that JSR's expert
group.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands
Quick question - Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208)
implementation?
Cheers,
Ias
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roy,
As i understand it, the concrete proposal is to implement this specification:
http://download.boulder.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/dw/specs/ws-sca/SCA_ClientAndImplementationModelforJava_V09.pdf
I think a first cut using Tomcat and Apache Axis (Java) will be the
best bet in making a 1.0 releas
Great! i will start a VOTE on ws pmc list.
thanks,
dims
On 11/30/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > speaking for myself, we'd be glad to make tuscany part of the WS
> > family. If you wish, we can have a vote on the PMC list. just let us
> > know.
> >
> > t
As much as I would enjoy seeing two umbrella projects duel over
an amorphous set of marketing terms invented by IBM, I think the
ASF should be developing products, not architectural styles.
Although, calling SOA an architectural style would imply that it has
some constraints -- does anyone know wh
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> speaking for myself, we'd be glad to make tuscany part of the WS
> family. If you wish, we can have a vote on the PMC list. just let us
> know.
>
> thx,
> dims
>
> On 11/30/05, Kenneth Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Noel,
>>
>>(I worked with Jeremy on the proposa
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> How does this proposal fit with other ESB/SOA projects currently underway at
> the ASF? At first glance, there appears to be overlap, so I am wondering if
> there a plan / opportunity to merge them.
>
We are looking forward to close collaboration with other projects at t
speaking for myself, we'd be glad to make tuscany part of the WS
family. If you wish, we can have a vote on the PMC list. just let us
know.
thx,
dims
On 11/30/05, Kenneth Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> (I worked with Jeremy on the proposal, and this seems like a good
> place to chi
Hi Noel,
(I worked with Jeremy on the proposal, and this seems like a good
place to chime in)
If by "merge", you mean consolidate the projects organizationally, we
debated approaching e.g. the WS PMC with this first but decided that
it ultimately make more sense to just come to the incubator and
Jeremy,
How does this proposal fit with other ESB/SOA projects currently underway at
the ASF? At first glance, there appears to be overlap, so I am wondering if
there a plan / opportunity to merge them.
--- Noel
-
To u
Tuscany Proposal
0. Rationale
Recent years have seen the introduction of a variety of specifications,
frameworks and products (both commercial and open source) that have
focused strongly on ease-of-development for enterprise applications by
reducing the complexity for a typical application devel
40 matches
Mail list logo
