On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:40 AM, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I moved the survey comments to the wiki and tried to put them into > categories [1]. Feel free to move items into the right buckets if you think > they are in the wrong category. My intention for categorization was to see > where I see the highest concentration of similar requests. Documentation > and samples stand out. I am going to start looking into these areas. I will > start new email threads for these and look forward to your help. > > I have also added a column in the table to record status of how the > feedback we received is being addressed. Please help update the table to > help realize how the survey result is turning into action and results. > > [1]: > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Survey+Response > > Thanks, > Haleh > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:28 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here are the raw results from the user survey. The survey ran for two >> weeks, there were 39 responses which is about 11% of the user list >> subscribers. >> >> >> 1. Which releases of Apache Tuscany do you use? >> 1.2 12%, 1.2.1 5%, 1.3 9%, 1.3.1 14% 1.3.2 60% >> >> >> 2. In what stage of development are you in? >> Prototyping 53% Development 36% Production 11% >> >> >> 3. What runtime platforms do you use? >> Tomcat 43% JBoss 8% Vendor Specific 17% Standalone 31% >> >> >> 4. Which technologies do you use in your solution? >> JEE 24%, Spring 17%, J2SE 24%, Scripting Languages 3%, Non-Java(C, C++ >> etc) 3%, OSGi 10%, BPEL 8%, ESB 5%, Other 3% >> >> >> 5. If you answered "other" to the previous question, please indicate what? >> Eclipse, Hibernate, Groovy, JDO2 - JPA - JMS - Flex, web 2.0 >> >> >> 6. Which SCA binding types do you use? >> ATOM 4%, CORBA 1%, DWR 2%, EJB 7%, Feed 1%, HTTP 16%, JMS 14%, JSONRPC >> 15%, RMI 10%, RSS 1%, Web Service 30% >> >> >> 7. Which SCA implementation types do you use? >> Java 47%, BPEL 11%, EJB 4%, OSGi 11%, Resource 1%, Script 4%, Spring 18%, >> Widget 2%, XQuery 1% >> >> >> 8. What additional bindings or implementation types would you like to see? >> C++, C, REST binding, .Net, Flex AMF, tcp and udp, hession, UDDI, >> spring.ws >> >> >> 9. How would you rate ease of installation and use? >> Very Good 8%, Good 46%, Fair 36%, Poor 10% >> >> >> 10. What suggestions do you have for improving this? >> 1 The samples can be made more useful by having documentation >> describing what the samples do and how they were built >> 2 Get IBM to donate their SCA toolkit for Eclipse. IBM Tooling for >> Service Component Architecture http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/scat >> 3 I got some problems exposing an SCA compoent as a web service running >> under Tomcat. Finally I succeed with the help of the Tuscany User Forum but >> it would have been easier if I had a sample explaining how to do that with >> Tomcat. I would like to use services exposed as EJB but here again I'm not >> sure about the time it would take to me as I have not seen a sample >> demonstrating this feature. >> 4 Quality & Testing! >> 5 The documentation is weak, i read the SCA_AssemblyModel_V100.pdf, but >> i have difficult to learn about correct use of artifacts, example tag have >> two attribute required (name and and promote) but the examples show only >> name, and the execution don't warning about this. The tutorial have many >> artifacts with .composite, componentType, contribution, workspace but don't >> have documentation, I am creating a infra using SCA but don't know about >> best practices using SCA. Sorry but i am brazilian and i have difficult in >> write english. >> 6 Better organized documentation, more elaborated documentation. >> 7 You know much configuration accept several ways. If you just add some >> comments in the artifacts in those samples bundled with Tuscany, that will >> be very helpful for new comers including me. >> 8 Better error handling messages. >> 9 complete redesign, especially the classloading. Extremly improved >> documentation. uptodat examples and tutorials. >> 10 RMI reconnect balance strategy >> 11 Build a standard distribution for Tomcat, JBoss, Jonas, ... >> 12 more documents, more enterprise feature support, like transaction, >> more samples >> 13 improve documentation :)，package it and we can download. >> 14 I found the tutorials were out of date compared to the latest >> version. >> 15 I think this is a terrific, terrific product and I want this to be >> brought into the fold here at XXXX. We have a mish-mash of components to >> build composites on - web services, RMI, etc. Documentation with working >> examples is the key to adoption. I understand that it has mostly been >> written by developers (and I'm one too :-) but it looks it. Simple use-cases >> like: "So you want to call a web service outside of the domain, here's what >> you need to do." >> 16 Better examples for async (true pub-sub with ActiveMQ), conversation >> support, cross-domain, more robust security policy examples (simplest >> possible example using OpenLDAP, for example) >> >> >> 11. If you have not adopted Tuscany yet, what would help you make that >> decision? >> 1 Three things: - support for Non-Java-Technologies - dynamic wiring - >> cross-domain communication. >> 2 Seamless integration with JBoss. >> 3 More documentation, and tips of architecture using SCA. >> 4 Moving to OSGi Easy deployment of SCA components Support for >> clustering: load balancing, failover and resiliency Support for distributed >> service discovery Support for QOS >> 5 Heavy and slow >> 6 spring call tuscany >> 7 More stable solution. There are still some "important" bugs on the >> implementation. >> 8 Clear documentation, and we're yours! I realize looking at code is >> good - but code+docs is the way to go. >> 9 Distributed domain >> >> >> 12. How is your choice of SCA helping your business? >> 1 At the moment I am looking at the Tuscany solution in order to show >> with simple examples to the rest of the team how it can be used to develop >> SOA like style architecture >> 2 Reduces integration and development costs >> 3 I thing the SCA is very good, this is couple with SOA Analisys Design >> Requirements, and its very good, I see the book of Thomas Erl and is easy >> mapping to SCA. But I need more documentation to best practices using SCA. >> 4 To support SOA development efforts >> 5 Same style of developing business logic(in both Java and C++). >> 6 Low coupling components >> 7 it's slowing it down >> 8 For the moment is just R&D. In our mind it should be able to >> complete(/replace?) a JEE approch >> 9 better architecture >> 10 Tuscany and SCA are an excellent platform for research into SOA. >> 11 It will help us by being able to turn solutions around much more >> quickly in a more decoupled manner. >> 12 greater flexibility >> 13 Low coupling component >> >> >> 13. Do you have any other comments on what might improve Apache Tuscany? >> 1 We need a tuscany management console >> 2 We very much like Tuscany but are having a few problems. We want to >> be able to create Tuscany OSGI bundles but are having a lot of problems with >> that. Also 1.3 seems to have broken calling Axis2 web services directly as a >> component. We'd also like to interop C++ and C# components and Java >> components. There's a lot of promise for this technology but we're having a >> difficult time combining the technologies we want to use with it. >> 3 Better integration between OpenJPA and SDO. The project Fluid is what >> I'm looking for. >> 4 The only thing missing from Tuscany is a binding which uses dynamic >> discovery, eg. via UDDI. This would provide then provide a framework that >> would facilitate the implementation and study of SOA systems. I'd like to >> get involved with adding this binding to Tuscany, but I don't have enough >> knowledge of the code or UDDI as yet. >> 5 More examples (see above). The Tuscany tools for Eclipse have made >> major enhancements lately, thanks a lot for those. >> 6 DAS is not updated. Hibernate or other JPA integration. >> >> >> >> > How do we best ensure that some of these thoughts make it into the roadmap? There's a danger that having them on a wiki page means it gets forgotten about. I've linked this page from the roadmap page [1] fto encourage people to look at the survey results when they are looking at how to evolve the roadmap. Simon [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Java+SCA+Roadmap
