Stefano, Sorry that I have't responded to the discussion -- I've been on a plane all day.
Before initiating this poll, I discussed it with Sam. I first suggested submitting WASP to Axis. Sam suggested that we set it up as a separate project. But we're happy to abide by the community's decision. As Sam said, Axis supports JAX/RPC. WASP supports JAXM. WASP also supports pluggable transports, pluggable XML protocols, pluggable header processing, pluggable encoding, and pluggable serializers. I saw a recent note from James Snell saying that he was making a fairly significant architecture change to Axis to support pluggable transports. I think there will be lots of opportunity to steal/merge code across the two code bases. I just don't want there to be a huge disruption in Axis to make it happen. Regards, Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [POLL] WASP Lite on Apache? > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > Stefano, > > > > I'm pleased that you think it's a good thing. > > To clarify: I was commenting Sam's note on "I am looking forward > to increased synergy and participation." > > Increased synergy is what I believe it's a good thing. > > Whether or not making WASP Lite an apache subproject, *this* is yet to > be clarified to my eyes. > > Just to make sure that everybody understands this distinction: synergy > *automatically* generates better communities. Competing projects, > normally, do not. > > So to be crystal clear: > > synergy -> good thing > competing subprojects -> not so sure > > > We first thought of submitting WASP Lite to Axis, but after > consideration > > determined that this approach would be too disruptive and technically > > challenging. > > Who considered that? you or the axis community? > > > WASP Lite is a complete code base, and it would be very > > difficult to attempt to merge this code base with the Axis code base. > > Oh, believe me, you'd be surprised on how creative people can become if > they are really interested in something. > > > Any > > merger attempt would significantly delay both projects. We don't want to > > disrupt the Axis project. > > We share the same concerns though. Let us understand whether or not the > move you propose goes in this direction or not. > > > At the same time we think that the open source community will definitely > > benefit from WASP Lite. > > Oh, I don't question that. If Sam says so, I trust his technical > judgement. > > But you didn't state > > > We think that a separate project is the better way to go. > > I thank you very much for your suggestion and will be taken into very > high consideration, but please keep in mind that it's up to the apache > communities to decide what to do with donated code. > > If you decide to donate it in order to communities to benefit, it should > not be your concern where the code ends up living, but should be the > community's itself. > > > Over time Axis and WASP Lite are likely to share code. Perhaps the > > projects might eventually converge. > > > This wouldn't be the first time we've had competing projects at Apache > > (Crimson/Xerces/Xerces2 comes to mind). > > Exactly. We got burned big time by the politics involved in this very > example and we DO NOT want this to happen again since we wouldn't have > the energy to do this over again. > > It is exactly because of this example that I'm seriously concerned about > having competing subprojects. > > Note: we have rules that allow committers of one project to propose an > "internal fork" of the subproject itself, then is the community to > decide what to do, but this doesn't separate them. > > If some of your guys are already committers of Axis and you think your > solution is better from a technical perspective, then why don't you > propose an internal fork with a new codename and work from there? > > > I think it just goes to show that > > the community is very interested in the technology. > > Sorry, I can't follow you. > > I asked explicitly for overlap analysis in order to understand why you > propose a different subproject but I didn't get that answer. > > Now, if you care about the interest of the community is should not > matter where the code ends up living or what name it will end up having. > Right? > > If you are so concerned about the name and the location, it only goes to > show me that you are more interested in its location and its visibility > than to the community interests. > > But I sincerely hope you can prove me wrong. > > So, let's get to the point: I'm personally against having two competing > subprojects for no technical reason, no matter what they do. Technical > competition should happen "inside" an existing community, following the > "Rules for revolutionaries". > > So, either somebody explains those technical reasons in detail (and > convices me of the value of having two competing communities), or my > vote remains a +1 on the acceptance of the code donation, but as a -1 on > the creation of a new subproject. > > DISCLAIMER: having resigned from PMC last year, this vote is not pending > but just a crystal clear way of expressing my very personal opinion as > part of this community. > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be > able to give birth to a dancing star. > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
