On 2/18/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
i'm not sure that james is being negative: just excitable :)
there are different paths to unification. it's not always best to
Hi, Robert --
there are different paths to unification. it's not always best to sit down
and try to come up with single grand unification strategy first. equally,
it's often not best to ignore the question entirely. it is often hard to hit
on the best design right away and then contrasting
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
Being
Technical decisions do not belong to the PMC/PPMC. Nor do they belong
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let's get the ball rolling and attack these on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/20/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 18, 2006, at 2:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Why are you being so negative?
Hiram Chirino wrote:
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
I did not know that technical decisions were the responsibilities of
the PMC/PPMC. Could you explain further?
See
On 17 Feb 2006, at 23:15, Ismael Ghalimi wrote:
Team,
Before we decide to put both codebases under the same project or under
separate projects, I would like to ask a couple of clarifying
questions.
First, what is the goal of the Ode project? Is it to develop an
implementation of the BPEL
On 18 Feb 2006, at 04:26, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Replied to on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please move discussion to that list.
The one comment to which I'll reply in general, as it effects multiple
projects, is:
The only issue is users of Sybase or PXE will want milestone builds
so they can test
First, what is the goal of the Ode project?
My preference would be on building, striclty speaking, a BPEL engine.
The whole BPM space is cluttered with different paradigms (classic
workflow, orchestration, document-style workflow...) and specs. BPEL
seems to be getting accepted as THE standard
2006/2/18, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- If we want to release something now, is it ok to have two separate
codebases under the same project?
Yes; lots of other projects do this already. (Agila, Axis, Geronimo etc)
Hi James,
I don't understand your example of Geronimo as a project
Why are you being so negative? Let's try to make it work. If it does
not then we decide what do next as a PPMC.
Being negative for one second...i can safely say that in the worst
case scenario - Sybase and PXE folks do have other choices
(codehaus,sf etc...) as they own the copyright to the code
On 16 Feb 2006, at 22:40, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
+1 for importing the codebase into 2 subdirectories to start with.
However, if we want to merge the two into one, then let's make it a
goal
that we don't release anything until we've figured out how to cut-n-
chop
mix-n-match to make
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:52 +, James Strachan wrote:
Integrating the two code bases together is gonna be a slow, iterative
s/two/three/.
process; we're talking complex code here. It could be that to start
with things are completely separate, after 6 months they are 10%
common, 2
Would it not be more expedient to have Ode as an umbrella project -
but the goal would to be to try and find commonality between all the
projects and see it's possible to merge?
It's a complex problem - no doubt (not because the individual code
bases are complex - but they are completely
My concern is that the proposed path is one where there's little
convergence in the near term and where the single incubating project
releases multiple files on their own schedules. That's fine, but that's
not one project.
What's the point of being one project if there's no viable plan to make
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
I totally agree these codebases are large and complicated (remember I
was the one who was surprised how fast people found that the Sybase
codebase was nice and cool). If you really think the best solution is
not to force them to merge then let's not go down the
Even when we were thinking about the ServiceMix project, I was not thinking
that using Sybase Ode with ServiceMix implied a tight binding; there was
agreement to avoid tight couplings and it would go against the grain of JBI
anyway. ServiceMix usage was just an example of a container using Ode.
On 17 Feb 2006, at 12:58, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
My concern is that the proposed path
I wasn't proposing a specific path, just highlighting issues we'll
have if we assume the only one engine approach.
is one where there's little
convergence in the near term
FWIW convergence will
How about this for an idea of how we can get started (particularly if
the thought of another Jakarta Commons-like project scared some
people off :)...
Agila already has 2 codebases inside it today; the original BPM and
Twister BPEL.
So how about we start the Ode podling with the same
Hi Paul
On 17 Feb 2006, at 18:44, Paul Brown wrote:
Then inside the Ode podling we figure out over time what BPEL stuff
we can merge etc. Over time the Twister code could merge/move into
Ode. BPM code from Ode could move into Agila. Or we can merge
everything into Ode, or Agila can become the
On Friday 17 February 2006 23:56, James Strachan wrote:
So I'm wondering if it might make sense to start the incubation
process as an umbrella project;
Umbrella doesn't sound right at all to a layman like me.
Use a single trunk, single build root, perhaps many modules, and do the IBM
styled
Replied to on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please move discussion to that list.
The one comment to which I'll reply in general, as it effects multiple
projects, is:
The only issue is users of Sybase or PXE will want milestone builds
so they can test against the incubating code to give us feedback
that
Alex Boisvert wrote:
I would revise my proposition to:
Apache Ode = Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL
Apache Agila = Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People
What do people think about this grouping?
Please feel free to pursue this discussion on [EMAIL PROTECTED] If the
Great stuff Ismael!
James
On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:07, Ismael Ghalimi wrote:
Good afternoon,
My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company
would be
interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation
of the PXE
BPEL 2.0 engine and the dedication of
Thanks!
On 2/16/06, James Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great stuff Ismael!
James
On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:07, Ismael Ghalimi wrote:
Good afternoon,
My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company
would be
interested in participating to the Ode project
Alan,
Thanks for doing this. It looks good.
One comment: in the Homogeneous developers section, we might want to make
mention of Intalio alongside Sybase in order to re-enforce the group's
heterogeneity.
Best regards
-Ismael
On 2/15/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Done. Feel
Bill and Ismael,
Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as:
Ismael: Intalio [working] alongside Sybase
Bill Flood: My preference is simply that we apply our
combined talent to work towards something
greater than the sum of the parts.
and from a
Noel,
We are in favor of a single project, for it will lead to the best
implementation we can get with the resources that are being dedicated to the
project.
The meaning of the Ode (ODE?) acronym seems a little bit confusing and might
have to be clarified. The name itself is nice though.
Our
If i may+1 to ode. let's get this rolling with ode-dev@
thanks,
-- dims
On 2/16/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill and Ismael,
Do be clear, as I understand it from comments such as:
Ismael: Intalio [working] alongside Sybase
Bill Flood: My preference is simply that
Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as Apache BPEL or
similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I know
it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for people to
recognize it as a BPEL project. (Like ActiveBPEL)
geir
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Bill
On 16 Feb 2006, at 16:41, Ismael Ghalimi wrote:
[snip]
Our primary concern moving forward will be whether we start from one
codebase, or try to merge two existing codebases.
From a purely practical perspective, its probably easiest to start
off with the 2 codebases imported (when the IP
I agree, we'll need to set both codebases in the repository so we can
start the merge process.
In parallel, we also need to determine what we want from the resulting
merge so we can work together in building the new engine.
alex
James Strachan wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006, at 16:41, Ismael Ghalimi
This raises an interesting point. Is the goal of the project to produce
a BPEL engine? If so, then we could have separation between BPEL
(processes) and workflow (human tasks). I think this would help
modularity and clarify project focus.
In order words, workflow-related pieces could go
It would seem better to think of the (human) workflow in a different scope
as we disect the problem. There are all kinds of issues in Workflow with
forms, etc. that have little to do with the actual orchestration or even
BPEL. Brings to mind MVC.
It might make sense to divide the problem space
+1 for importing the codebase into 2 subdirectories to start with.
However, if we want to merge the two into one, then let's make it a goal
that we don't release anything until we've figured out how to cut-n-chop
mix-n-match to make that real. Its clearly not going to be easy and
will take some
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as Apache BPEL or
similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're doing. I
know it's not terribly imaginative, but might make it easy for
people to recognize it as a BPEL
Though Apache SOAP was a bit before my time...i agree :)
On 2/16/06, Roy T. Fielding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Could I presume to suggest something as obvious as Apache BPEL or
similar? makes it easier for people to grok what we're
Alright, then I would revise my proposition to:
Apache Ode = Merge of PXE, Sybase BPE and Agila BPEL
Apache Agila = Merge of Agila workflow and Intalio BPEL4People
What do people think about this grouping?
alex
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
It's all good news for the community at large!
On 2/15/06, Ismael Ghalimi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good afternoon,
My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO of Intalio. Our company would
be
interested in participating to the Ode project through a donation of the
PXE
BPEL 2.0 engine and
Done. Feel free to amend.
Regards,
Alan
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 2/15/2006 2:15 PM:
Welcome aboard
Alan, James,
Could you please update the wiki proposal?
thanks,
dims
On 2/15/06, Ismael Ghalimi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good afternoon,
My name is Ismael Ghalimi, and I am the CEO
39 matches
Mail list logo
