Dan, I do think that "graduating" via a merger with the CXF implementation and engagements with that community is a good goal to have. I believe we call that out explicitly since we tell all projects that when the time is ripe we can figure out where the project is gonna live. So +1 for that option.
I am looking at this from the point of view of...We are here now, what can we do next? Would everyone like to take a look at the sources next? thanks, dims On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed April 22 2009 1:07:39 pm Greg Truty wrote: >> Hello all, I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for >> Apache Wink, stand-alone REST toolkit supporting JAX-RS (JSR 311), a >> client runtime and test cases (as well as other items). The full proposal >> can be found on the wiki at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WinkProposal >> . We are looking forward to all questions and feedback, positive or >> negative. In addition, we welcome all participants and mentors to help >> support the effort. > > I know you are expecting a response from me (I've talked to Dims about this > already) so I might as well get it out of the way.... :-) > > So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation. You looked at Apache CXF > but it didn't completely meet your needs. Instead of engaging with CXF > (there wasn't any discussion about any of this on the CXF dev/users list) to > enhance CXF, you fork it in house and update it and enhance it outside of any > community. Now you want to push it back into Apache, but not with any of the > CXF community. I just wanted to get that out in the open. Two > implementations isn't a bad thing (think Axis2 and CXF) but the way this was > approached is a concern. > > Next come the hard questions: > 1) The proposal mentions it's already JAX-RS TCK compliant. From a JAX-RS > standpoint, were do you see the community "growing"? I've seen several > projects that come in with their stated goals already "complete" and have a > tough time getting new committers. > > 2) What "advantages" would it have over CXF's implementation and/or Jersey? > (apart from the TCK compliance which CXF is working on now that we got the > TCK) Since Wink would be Apache licensed, I'd expect anything "cool" would be > pulled into CXF anyway if possible. One advantage of multiple Apache > licensed implementations is that great ideas can also be pulled back and > forth. :-) Obviously, I haven't seen the Wink code so I don't know > how easy/hard that would be. > > One "question" I have when I see projects with duplicate goals is to see if > the differences could be resolved to a point where only one project is needed. > I remember with CXF and Axis 2 sitting down in a room at some conference > several years ago (ApacheCon Austin maybe? Don't really remember.) with Dan > Diephouse, myself, Glen Daniels, Sanjiva and several others involved with both > projects to try and resolve any issues and possibly merge things. In that > meeting, we really did conclude we had strong differences in opinions on > designs, priorities, and ideas and it really wasn't possible. That is quite > OK. At least the discussion occurred. I haven't seen discussions like > that with CXF/Wink. > > > I guess from my standpoint, while I'm not "against" the proposal, I'd > definitely like to see it have the option of "graduating" via a merger with > the CXF implementation and engagements with that community. > > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
