incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Truty <gtr...@us.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:59:01 GMT
Dan,

Let me address both your comments, and then your questions.

- Both IBM and HP EACH have an implementation of a REST runtime.  We are 
bringing both.  Speaking for the IBM portion, yes - we have something 
which is already compliant.  Apache CXF is both a JAX-WS and JAX-RS 
implementation.  In IBM, our JAX-WS implementation is based on Apache 
Axis2.  Therefore, it was prohibitive to pull in CXF as part of our 
runtime.   IBM wanted/needed something smaller - it's as simple as that. 
Perhaps the answers to your questions may help me position some of this in 
a better light...

1) 
a) IBMs implementation is JAX-RS 1.0 compliant.  With the fact that there 
is now a 1.1 spec - so that's something that needs to be looked at. 
b) one of the things that I see that are missing are more in depth 
examples for how to use JAX-RS in a RESTful fashion.   Getting these 
written up can benefit BOTH projects
c) Some of the message body readers/writers (to handle other mime types 
and programming models) can be shared among both projects.  They should be 
portable
d) There is no client programming model in JAX-RS.  This is something 
which I think is needed as REST services get pushed deeper into the 
enterprise (and away from the presentation tier).  These will help feed 
back changes for a later update to JAX-RS.  Look at Jersey, RESTlet, 
RESTeasy, CXF (they all offer a client API).

This may be a naive assumption, but I do think there are opportunities to 
share capabilities amongst the 2 projects - even letting them pull code 
back and forth.

HP was also working on JAX-RS compliance for their implementation (so - 
again), it would be a melding of the various runtimes (in a lighter 
fashion).

2) 1b, c, d) are examples which we should be able to agree - or get very 
very close on.  Whether we can get to a single implementation (I don't 
know).  If we can figure out how to tease them apart into pieces - 
perhaps.  I haven't, myself, seen the HP code (but our IBM participants 
are willing to do whatever it takes to try and quickly come to a joint 
resolution between the 2 runtimes).

Getting the various teams together at an ApacheCon is a great idea (but 
given the current economic times), I don't know how much it's immediately 
practical.  I'm think the first step is to at least get things on the 
table (i.e. code contributed, discussions formulated, to see how 
close/apart we really are) - and go from there.

My question back to you is, do you think we can pull out the JAX-WS 
capabilities from CXF? 

Regards... Greg

Greg Truty
WebSphere Web Services and REST Architect,  IBM Austin
EMail:     gtruty@us.ibm.com 
Phone:   (ext)  (512) 286-8985
                (Tie) 363-8985



From:
Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
To:
general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Greg Truty/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Nicholas L Gallardo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Dustin 
Amrhein/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Bryant Luk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Jesse A 
Ramos/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher J Blythe/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Baram, 
Eliezer" <ebaram@hp.com>, elman@hp.com, nadav.fischer@hp.com, "Snitkovsky, 
Martin" <martin.snitkovsky@hp.com>, tali.alsaigh-cohen@hp.com, 
tomer.shadi@hp.com, Michael Rheinheimer/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Date:
04/22/2009 02:15 PM
Subject:
Re: Apache Wink Proposal



On Wed April 22 2009 1:07:39 pm Greg Truty wrote:
> Hello all, I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for
> Apache Wink, stand-alone REST toolkit supporting JAX-RS (JSR 311), a
> client runtime and test cases (as well as other items). The full 
proposal
> can be found on the wiki at: 
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WinkProposal
> .  We are looking forward to all questions and feedback, positive or
> negative.  In addition, we welcome all participants and mentors to help
> support the effort.

I know you are expecting a response from me (I've talked to Dims about 
this 
already) so I might as well get it out of the way....  :-)

So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation.  You looked at Apache 
CXF 
but it didn't completely meet your needs.   Instead of engaging with CXF 
(there wasn't any discussion about any of this on the CXF dev/users list) 
to 
enhance CXF, you fork it in house and update it and enhance it outside of 
any 
community.   Now you want to push it back into Apache, but not with any of 
the 
CXF community.    I just wanted to get that out in the open.    Two 
implementations isn't a bad thing (think Axis2 and CXF) but the way this 
was 
approached is a concern.

Next come the hard questions:
1) The proposal mentions it's already JAX-RS TCK compliant.   From a 
JAX-RS 
standpoint, were do you see the community "growing"?   I've seen several 
projects that come in with their stated goals already "complete" and have 
a 
tough time getting new committers. 

2) What "advantages" would it have over CXF's implementation and/or 
Jersey? 
(apart from the TCK compliance which CXF is working on now that we got the 

TCK)  Since Wink would be Apache licensed, I'd expect anything "cool" 
would be 
pulled into CXF anyway if possible.    One advantage of multiple Apache 
licensed implementations is that great ideas can also be pulled back and 
forth.   :-)        Obviously, I haven't seen the Wink code so I don't 
know 
how easy/hard that would be.

One "question" I have when I see projects with duplicate goals is to see 
if 
the differences could be resolved to a point where only one project is 
needed. 
I remember with CXF and Axis 2 sitting down in a room at some conference 
several years ago (ApacheCon Austin maybe?  Don't really remember.) with 
Dan 
Diephouse, myself, Glen Daniels, Sanjiva and several others involved with 
both 
projects to try and resolve any issues and possibly merge things.    In 
that 
meeting, we really did conclude we had strong differences in opinions on 
designs, priorities, and ideas and it really wasn't possible.   That is 
quite 
OK.   At least the discussion occurred.     I haven't seen discussions 
like 
that with CXF/Wink. 


I guess from my standpoint, while I'm not "against" the proposal, I'd 
definitely like to see it have the option of "graduating" via a merger 
with 
the CXF implementation and engagements with that community.


-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message