Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97335 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2006 14:07:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Feb 2006 14:07:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 90329 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2006 14:07:32 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 90174 invoked by uid 500); 3 Feb 2006 14:07:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 90163 invoked by uid 99); 3 Feb 2006 14:07:32 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:07:32 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of davanum@gmail.com designates 66.249.82.201 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.82.201] (HELO xproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.82.201) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:07:31 -0800 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s12so78920wxc for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:07:10 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tlcjgLRwLB+Wj3WigdoilxAqdF8GowLgkhz/0Tzbl0JsNBYFEd4QYlLyddWGCIUhoU00fUWIFn/9p19KHstSnbPALp+dhqrMMv5d3DB19J097hlJjywEcDPMNaeu9kIGiBHVUqPFGLcWs7q3A8GoYBG68ki3Gl8hUOdaR1MT1M0= Received: by 10.11.100.28 with SMTP id x28mr26975cwb; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:07:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.11.120.58 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 06:07:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19e0530f0602030607r444f8897i899e36e6094c71db@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:07:10 -0500 From: Davanum Srinivas Reply-To: dims@apache.org To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project Cc: servicemix-dev@geronimo.apache.org, dev@geronimo.apache.org In-Reply-To: <774DCCE8-CE6B-4123-9DC0-D8C50D47D2AA@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <9483C48B-70D6-4C35-899A-77216E576BA1@gmail.com> <1138958330.2379.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43E33F9C.80002@Golux.Com> <8AD8D078-8CC0-4106-AC32-7C85C8B0FD29@gmail.com> <19e0530f0602030502s4ee1507ob38f40e5daaa7881@mail.gmail.com> <774DCCE8-CE6B-4123-9DC0-D8C50D47D2AA@gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Why can't you treat an orchestration engine like a component like the way you treat Axis or XFire? Why does the code have to live within ServiceMix? Lot of us want a BPEL engine, we don't want a JBI container. The code coming in does exactly that, it is a BPEL engine and has no relation to JBI or Java for that matter. Why can't you have a separate project for BPEL and add glue code as a JBI component EXACTLY the way you work with other projects like XFire? Seriously James I've never seen anyone disagree (in any effective manner) with you on the list(s). Why is that? Is it because all decisions happen off-list and all that happens here is the love-fest as Sanjiva described? Community is not about borg-like ok-ing of proposals. We seem to agree on the ends but not on the means. You like a very good integration with a BPEL engine for ServiceMix. I like a very good BPEL engine for its own sake. Am sure we can find people on both sides and some who may like both objectives. Why can't we agree to make it work as a separate entity? If not at least tell us what your *shopping list* contains as to what other JBI components you are going to bring in by the time incubation is over? thanks, dims On 2/3/06, James Strachan wrote: > On 3 Feb 2006, at 13:02, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > James, > > > > There are 2 problems: > > - As a Geronimo PMC member i feel a BPEL implemenation is out-of-scope > > of what i voted for when i +1'ed incubation for ServiceMix. > > The proposal for ServiceMix clearly says... > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ServiceMixProposal > > its a JBI container and component suite. An orchestration engine is a > JBI component so I see this as perfectly within scope. In your vote > you never enumerated what JBI components the ServiceMix project could > and could not develop. Could you maybe give us a list now of what > components you did vote for? > > > > I don't > > like what's happening and the way you are doing it. > > Sorry about that, we're trying to fix it > > > > - Secondly, there just isnt enough information to make a decision one > > way or another. A proposal would clear up things like what the > > "supposed" community thinks about a road map for the future say "BPEL > > 2.0" > > > > So, bottom line, Please draw up a new proposal for a separate project. > > So here's the thing; no-one involved (the folks donating the code and > the committers on the ServiceMix project) want a new project. We all > want to work in the single JBI project, ServiceMix where the JBI > container and JBI components live and are developed, documented and > tested together. We want a single, strong community around JBI. > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org