« Return to Thread: [VOTE] Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
Re: [VOTE] Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
by Mike Edwards-5
::
Rate this Message:
Folks,
Comments inline...
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> <snip>
>
> On 10/12/07, ant elder <ant.elder@...> wrote:
>
>> Establish the Apache Tuscany project:
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's
>> purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with
>> the creation and maintenance of open-source software that
>> simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
>> applications and provides a managed service-oriented runtime
>> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group,
> ^^^^
>> for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> 1. is 'based' the right term?
>
We discussed this within the Tuscany project. The intent is to say that
Tuscany will implement the SCA & SDO standards, without being limited to
them. Tuscany today goes beyond what is in the standards - for example,
there are implementations of things like XQuery, JSON, Ruby, none of
which are (yet) in the standards. "Based on" is intended to give the
flavour of implementing the standards and also going further.
> 2. grrr SOA! i'm unclear what this really means in this case. though
> i've been following the lists for quite a while now, i still find it
> really hard to understand the target use cases are for tuscany. is it
> possible to accurately describe what what tuscany is used for without
> using buzzwords?
>
I must admit that I hadn't perceived "SOA" as a buzzword. I agree that
it is a deliberately imprecise term, but that it does describe a general
architectural approach to building applications. Do you think we need
to build some paragraphs here that describe what service-oriented
architecture means?
As for the target use cases for Tuscany - it is when you want to build a
distributed application from independently acting, loosely coupled
service components, which may be written using any of a range of
programming technologies (Java, C++, Ruby, PHP....) and which may be
connected using any of a range of communication technologies (Web
services, REST, JMS, RMI-IIOP....).
> 3. is the definition a little ambiguous?
>
> ((simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
> applications) and (provides a managed service-oriented runtime))
> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group
>
> vs
>
> (simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
> applications) and ((provides a managed service-oriented runtime)
> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group)
>
It's the former and I think we can improve the text by adding a comma
before "based".
> 4. does tuscany really want to limit itself to a single standard? if
> another organisation created standards in this same area, would
> tuscany really wish to exclude itself from creating an implementation?
>
No, Tuscany does not want to limit itself - indeed it already uses other
standards like some of the WS-* standards. We had thought that the
wording above didn't imply any limitation, but if we're mistaken in that
view, perhaps we need to add some explicit words like:
"...based on but not limited to..."
> - robert
>
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
Comments inline...
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> <snip>
>
> On 10/12/07, ant elder <ant.elder@...> wrote:
>
>> Establish the Apache Tuscany project:
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's
>> purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with
>> the creation and maintenance of open-source software that
>> simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
>> applications and provides a managed service-oriented runtime
>> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group,
> ^^^^
>> for distribution at no charge to the public.
>
> 1. is 'based' the right term?
>
We discussed this within the Tuscany project. The intent is to say that
Tuscany will implement the SCA & SDO standards, without being limited to
them. Tuscany today goes beyond what is in the standards - for example,
there are implementations of things like XQuery, JSON, Ruby, none of
which are (yet) in the standards. "Based on" is intended to give the
flavour of implementing the standards and also going further.
> 2. grrr SOA! i'm unclear what this really means in this case. though
> i've been following the lists for quite a while now, i still find it
> really hard to understand the target use cases are for tuscany. is it
> possible to accurately describe what what tuscany is used for without
> using buzzwords?
>
I must admit that I hadn't perceived "SOA" as a buzzword. I agree that
it is a deliberately imprecise term, but that it does describe a general
architectural approach to building applications. Do you think we need
to build some paragraphs here that describe what service-oriented
architecture means?
As for the target use cases for Tuscany - it is when you want to build a
distributed application from independently acting, loosely coupled
service components, which may be written using any of a range of
programming technologies (Java, C++, Ruby, PHP....) and which may be
connected using any of a range of communication technologies (Web
services, REST, JMS, RMI-IIOP....).
> 3. is the definition a little ambiguous?
>
> ((simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
> applications) and (provides a managed service-oriented runtime))
> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group
>
> vs
>
> (simplifies the development and deployment of service oriented
> applications) and ((provides a managed service-oriented runtime)
> based on the standards defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group)
>
It's the former and I think we can improve the text by adding a comma
before "based".
> 4. does tuscany really want to limit itself to a single standard? if
> another organisation created standards in this same area, would
> tuscany really wish to exclude itself from creating an implementation?
>
No, Tuscany does not want to limit itself - indeed it already uses other
standards like some of the WS-* standards. We had thought that the
wording above didn't imply any limitation, but if we're mistaken in that
view, perhaps we need to add some explicit words like:
"...based on but not limited to..."
> - robert
>
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@...
« Return to Thread: [VOTE] Graduate Tuscany as a top level project
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |