Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Paul, I'll try to spell out the way that the SCA Specification collaboration works and the IP rules that apply. I'll do this in a post following from Mike Rowley's note on Project IP Yours, Mike. Paul Fremantle wrote: Jim I understand the IP and Royalty requirements of the published

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Jeremy Thanks for the detailed reply. Geronimo has private lists for stuff under NDA and has had various people on different expert groups (e.g. a couple of us were on JSR-220). In general, there are a lot of Apache projects that work with the JCP and deal with the closed nature of JSRs -

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Jim That's very interesting. It sounds similar to some work going on in Synapse where we have a recursive composition model. I think one of the key questions in forging greater links between Tuscany and the spec group is what the IP and membership regulations around the spec group? Is there a

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

The IP is royalty free and the license is printed in the body of the specifications. The specifications can be found at members' sites,e.g. http://dev2dev.bea.com/pub/a/2005/11/sca.html. On membership, I'm copying Mike Edwards since he is better at explaining that process than myself.

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

I can think of a couple of options that might work. 1. All Tuscany participants could join the spec collaboration and get first-hand information on issues and agreed changes. 2. Set up a private Apache mailing list on which non-public spec information could be distributed and discussions

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Jim I understand the IP and Royalty requirements of the published spec. But what I don't understand is the IP and Royalty requirements of what you refer to as the spec group. I couldn't find anything on osoa.org. You talk about greater collaboration between the spec group and the tuscany group,

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Paul, I'm going to ask others more versed in legalities to jump in regarding your questions...I do have a quick question though: how does Geronimo handle this as I believe the JCP IP rules are far more restrictive than those associated with the specs? Thanks, Jim On Jun 7, 2006, at

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Jim Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given the closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out. Paul On 6/7/06, Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, I'm going to ask others more

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Paul Fremantle wrote: Jim Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given the closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out. Geronimo has private lists for stuff under NDA and has had various

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: Paul Fremantle wrote: Jim Its a great question. I think the answer is that they stick to published specs, which is what I was expecting Tuscany to do given the closed nature of the spec group. I'll ask around to find out. Geronimo has

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

I like to second all of what Ant wrote and also Ken Tam asked if it could not be delayed till next week. I'd like to be up to speed and just a few days more would help to digest it all to be more informed, but I'll go with Friday if that's what it is. ant elder wrote: I agree 100% with Ken,

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

I'm out all next week so it sounds as if Friday is the best time for most people. Jim On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Rick wrote: I like to second all of what Ant wrote and also Ken Tam asked if it could not be delayed till next week. I'd like to be up to speed and just a few days more

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Next week would be better for me. I'm landing home from the US on Friday and 8-10PST is 4-6pm on Friday evening which aint popular in blighty :-) Paul On 6/6/06, Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm out all next week so it sounds as if Friday is the best time for most people. Jim On Jun

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

By the way can someone explain what the term Recursive Core Architecture means? Paul On 6/6/06, Jim Marino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It looks as if we have the choice of Thursday or Friday this week, or rescheduling for two weeks. I'd prefer we do it this week. Jim On Jun 6, 2006, at 1:28 PM,

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Good question... In the spec group, one of the major changes we are currently undertaking is a move to a recursive model where components can either be leaf-types (atomic) or composite, in which case they may contain children. In previous versions of the spec we had a two-level model

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me. Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say Friday?) or sometime next week so that more people on the list get a chance to find out about it and fit it into their schedules? Also, Jim Jeremy -- if you guys have

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Message - From: Kenneth Tam [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Recursive core architectural overview I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me. Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Kenneth Tam wrote: I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me. Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say Friday?) or sometime next week so that more people on the list get a chance to find out about it and fit it into their schedules? Friday would

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I have created some basic slides and UML diagrams when I looked into the sandbox code last week (I need to do some adjustments since more refactorings were checked in). I can upload them into the wiki and Jim/Jeremy can verify to see if it's helpful. Thanks - that

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Friday is OK for me, but I'd prefer not to go too late in this time zone. Can we do this from 8.00 to 10.00 am PDT? Simon Jeremy Boynes wrote: Kenneth Tam wrote: I am very interested in this, but the short notice also concerns me. Can we push this out to at least the end of the week (say

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

Yes this would be appreciated. Can you make sure it's in a common graphic format - I'm too cheap to shell out the $$ for a UML tool ;-) Jim On Jun 5, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: Raymond Feng wrote: Hi, I have created some basic slides and UML diagrams when I looked into the

Re: Recursive core architectural overview

I agree 100% with Ken, could you give just a little more information about whats going on here? That email just gives hints - there's been some SCA spec changes, there's some code in the the sandbox for recursive core architecture work and to clearly demarcate the runtime extension mechanism.