incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Strachan <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Tuscany SOA Project
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:41:26 GMT
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.


> having had some brief
> exchanges w/ Dims & Sanjiva re: the relationship between this
> proposal, Synapse, ServiceMix etc, we certainly plan to take advantage
> of as many existing projects as possible.  If given the opportunity
> and some time, it turns out to make sense to most of the folks
> involved that the Tuscany work ought to live under an existing PMC or
> be rolled into an existing project, that's great.
>
> 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 out how to work with e.g. ServiceMix being built around JBI,
> a Java-centric standard, is definitely in the plan and seems like the
> kind of work that would be appropriate to do while incubating.

Agreed. Though we can work on that after incubation too :)

FWIW we've been focussing quite hard lately in the ServiceMix project  
on how to deploy different programming models into JBI; from SAAJ to  
JCA to JAX-WS to vanilla JSR 181 POJOs; we're very keen to provide  
all the JBI hooks so that SCA services (or a lightweight SCA  
container) can drop right into ServiceMix/JBI so we can reuse the  
various JBI services to work nicely with BPEL or smart routing  
engines and so forth. Being able to reuse multiple transports &  
routing & orchestration services can be quite handy as a deployment  
option for SCA services.

I heartily support the Tuscany project ; its a good concise and  
relatively small spec (I'm a big fan of small specs :). From a Java  
perspective it certainly looks like Spring POJOs and SCA POJOs can  
work nicely together with a very similar programming model; and JAX- 
WS/JSR181 should be relatively easy to support too. SCA does seem to  
be a competitor to EJB3 - I'm not the worlds biggest EJB3 fan so  
competition in this area is a good thing IMHO - but I hope there  
could be some close co-operation with the EJB folks in Geronimo as I  
can see that despite its slightly different annotations & scope  
models, the underlying implementation code for remoting, session  
handling, load balancing and clustering will be very similar. e.g.  
the Geronimo clustering work would be very useful to Tuscany.

In summary I'm very keen to see innovation in this area - its sorely  
needed IMHO. I hope as Tuscany grows and matures it can present a  
unified POJO programming model for Java developers that can work well  
in other deployment scenarios (JAX-WS, pure Spring, maybe even EJB3  
etc) to try simplify the application developers life somewhat.  
Incidentally I've also wanted a nice Apache licensed SDO  
implementation too for some time (thats not bound to EMF :)

James
-------
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message