incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Blaze
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:51:59 GMT
I guess its a murky area legally - making similar APIs using
documentation as a guide. e.g. its quite striking how many extremely
similar APIs are in .Net and Mono to the JDK.

FWIW there's a current practice to get around Sun's bizarre licensing
on various Java/J2EE APIs - folks type in their own version of the
source code using the javadoc as a guide. e.g. try the
geronimo-spec-*.jar as an Apache licensed version of the
crappily-licensed-Sun J2EE jars. I guess thats legal right? So maybe
just using documentation to create similar APIs on other platforms is
OK?


On 7/20/06, robert.j.greig@jpmorgan.com <robert.j.greig@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
> I think there may be some legal issues with creating an API that resembles
> JMS too closely.
>
> From the JMS licence terms:
>
> "Subject to the terms and conditions of this license, Sun hereby grants you
> a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited
> license (without the right to sublicense) under Sun's intellectual property
> rights to review the Specification internally solely for the purpose
> of designing and developing your Java applets and applications intended to
> run on the Java platform. Other than this limited license, you
> acquire no right, title or interest in or to the Specification or any other
> Sun intellectual property. The Specification contains the proprietary
> information of Sun and may only be used in accordance with the license
> terms set forth herein."
>
> The key bit here is "intended to run on the Java platform".
>
> That said there is definitely merit in having our .NET API and C++ API
> being relatively similar.
>
> XMS for C# does resemble JMS very closely although with delegates and with
> the naming convention for interfaces. I am not sure whether IBM would be
> interested in donating XMS.
>
> RG
>
>
> |---------+---------------------------->
> |         |           "James Strachan" |
> |         |           <james.strachan@g|
> |         |           mail.com>        |
> |         |                            |
> |         |           19/07/2006 20:50 |
> |         |           Please respond to|
> |         |           general          |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>   |                                                                                 
                                            |
>   |       To:       general@incubator.apache.org                                    
                                            |
>   |       cc:                                                                       
                                            |
>   |       Subject:  Re: [Proposal] Blaze                                            
                                            |
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
>
>
> On 7/19/06, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Currently ActiveMQ has several C/C++ clients (with another client
> > > library waiting to get through the  donator's lawyers), so it might
> > > make sense at some point to try unify the C++ clients together too so
> > > users have a single C++ API for their messaging client and then a
> > > number of implentations/transports/protocols to use at deployment
> > > time. i.e. making a JMS for C++ API. (We've got a good start called
> > > CMS in ActiveMQ...)
> >
> > I agree that a C++ (and also C) rendering of a JMS like API is going
> > to be a very useful thing.
> >
> > James - do you have any idea how CMS matches or differs from IBM's XMS
> > (
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/library/techarticles/0509_phillips/0509_phillips.html
> )?
> > XMS is also a rendering of JMS into C/C#/C++.
>
> Thanks for the link! I've had a quick look and it looks remarkably
> close to the current CMS client. Hardly surprising I guess since they
> are both kinda clones of the JMS API but in C++ and using JMS 1.1 and
> mostly ignoring the crappy bits of JMS 1.0.2b :)
>
> I couldn't see the C# client so not sure if we differ a bit there - we
> ended up changing the C# client a little from JMS to make use of C#
> coding conventions and features (like delegates and events etc) - and
> we followed that sucky C# practice of naming interfaces IConnection
> etc :). Not sure if the XMS in C# does the same. (We imaginatively
> called the C# client NMS for .Net Messaging System).
>
> I wonder if IBM and the XMS folks would be interested in donating the
> *API* code for XMS to Apache and working with other folks at Apache so
> we can merge some of the C/C++/C# clients together into a single
> reuable client API with pluggable providers (and maybe even some
> resuable optional implementation code different implementations could
> choose to reuse)?
>
> There's clearly a delta between AMQP and the features of JMS, but even
> if we just get the core JMS semantics reusable across the clients it'd
> be a big win IMHO.
>
>
> > I think it would be interesting to see a confluence of the APIs and
> > protocols between ActiveMQ and Blaze giving interoperability in both
> > code and on the wire.
>
> Agreed.
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer
or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation
of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to
completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements
made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries
and affiliates.
>
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, legally privileged,
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information
contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission
and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect
any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the
recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase
& Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as applicable, for any loss or damage arising
in any way from its use. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact
the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
Thank you.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 

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


Mime
View raw message