Meeting Notes: Sun and Apache/Axis meeting (06/06/2002)

  We had a meeting Thursday 06/06 with Sam Ruby, Glen Daniels and
  Tom Jordahl at Sun campus. Eduardo Pelegri, Anita Jindal, Roberto
  Chinnici and I were attending from Sun side. SOAPBuilders Round IV
  gave us opportunity to setup this meeting. The primary objective of
  this meeting was to discuss the current and future relationship
  between the Sun JAX-RPC team and the ASF team.

  This meeting is part of a continued collaboration between Apache/Axis
  and Sun on JAX-RPC. Apache has been a strong supporter of JAX-RPC
  spec. Last year, there were meetings to discuss how JAX-RPC RI team 
  and Axis can collaborate on the JAX-RPC implementation. At that time,
  the different schedule and resource constraints on both sides led 
  towards the path of two implementations. On a sidenote, JAX-RPC EG 
  had agreed to have an early access of JAX-RPC specification based 
  on Apache/Axis request. So all signs of good collaboration so far.

  In the meeting, we discussed how reference implementation fits into
  the JCP JSR process.  RI is meant to promote the specification. RI
  must be compatible with spec and TCK. Spec schedules are the primary
  driver. So JCP and spec compatibility need to be primary driver for
  any potential JAX-RPC implementation convergence that involves
  JAX-RPC team and Apache/Axis.

  Presently Sun's JAX-RPC RI resources and schedule are tied with
  the J2EE 1.4 deliverables. This pushes the timeframe for any
  future collaboration (with Apache/Axis) to the post J2EE 1.4
  timeframe.

  One possibility of future collaboration would be to create an RI
  project at Apache that would take advantage of the experiences of
  both the JAX-RPC RI group and Axis.

  Based on our discussions, October around the SOAP Builders round
  V (that Sun will be hosting) was mentioned as a good time to start
  looking into more details at the collaboration between the two teams.

  Regards,

  Rahul Sharma,
  Lead, JAX-RPC JSR-101,
  Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Reply via email to