Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 37300 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2006 20:24:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Feb 2006 20:24:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 31314 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2006 20:24:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 31003 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2006 20:24:09 -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 30991 invoked by uid 99); 14 Feb 2006 20:24:09 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:24:09 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.8 required=10.0 tests=PLING_PLING,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of geir@pobox.com) Received: from [64.74.244.71] (HELO chi.mobile-health-diary.com) (64.74.244.71) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:24:08 -0800 Received: (qmail 12469 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2006 20:23:47 -0000 Received: from ool-43560634.dyn.optonline.net (HELO ?192.168.2.4?) (geir@67.86.6.52) by b014.internal.mobile-health-diary.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2006 20:23:47 -0000 Message-ID: <43F23C2E.1000103@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:23:10 -0500 From: Geir Magnusson Jr Reply-To: geir@pobox.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lance Waterman CC: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project) References: <19e0530f0602031352o5dad91cfk8814b6a41a329b2d@mail.gmail.com> <19e0530f0602031605g2c017a32s2c168ca0bb48780f@mail.gmail.com> <43F22179.4070401@pobox.com> <43F231BB.9050304@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Lance Waterman wrote: > As one of the Sybase BPEL developers, this certainly sounds reasonable to > me. Perhaps we can start a discussion around what the "bake off" criteria > will look like ( i.e. what BPEL constructs are fully/half/not supported, > what set of unit tests should be supported, etc ... ). As an example; in > looking through the Agila code ( which could have rendered faulty > assumptions ) it appears that the BPEL "Scope" construct is not currently > supported. I rate "Scope" as quite important to have in a BPEL > implementation and its not a simple thing to implement. Likewise, I am sure > there are criteria that the Sybase donated engine does not fully measure > against. > While I'm not sure how far along the BPEL engine in Agila is (Twister), I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at the same level of completeness as your implementation. geir > Lance > > On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> >> >> Bill Flood wrote: >>> Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue. We looked at what they >> had >>> and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator >>> project. >>> >>> We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be >> any >>> uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in >> and >>> provide coding help on what they already had. >> I don't really know. I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did >> have a few discussions w/ people after this all started. >> >> I expect that what you just said might have been the problem. They >> already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they >> stop and reboot on your codebase. After all, they have some users and >> wouldn't want to just drop them. >> >>> I was a little mystified. >>> Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed >>> counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability >> so we >>> passed. >>> >>> Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in >> Apache >>> thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result >> of >>> our inherent subjectivity >>> >>> I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there >> was >>> disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are. We left the >> previous >>> conversation on good terms. At this point, my preference would be that >> the >>> Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part >> of >>> that larger community for this new baseline. To me, it's not about >>> ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something >>> forward. >> How about making a fresh start then... If the Agila people are >> interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL >> that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of >> anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can? >> >> In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS >> projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with >> BPEL. >> >> Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the >> community collaborate around that? (I'm not sure what that would >> entail, actually...) >> >> Would you be interested in that? >> >> geir >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org