Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
What I would like to do is to hear from Howard himself (or anyone 
working on the HiveMind project)!  I'm particularly interested in how 
Avalon can leverage some of the technologies in HiveMind, and I'm 
equally confident in the ability of Avalon to provide 
value-add to the HimeMind project - and I'm not talking about 
>>classic avalon component interfaces - I'm talking about generic
>>container-side facilities.
The is a potential for mutual benefit.
Isn't that worth exploring?


I aggree with Andy's comments below ... you can't "incubate" HiveMind 
> inside Avalon. My Blob (http://javatapestry.blogspot.com) discusses
this as well, with some other insights (partly into my own neuroticism).
Just a point of clarification.  Avalon is *not* going to incubate 
anything.  HiveMind *will not exist* inside Avalon.  This is simply 
because Avalon is not engaging in multi-container incubation - period. 
What Avalon is doing - and what is relevant to your initative and Avalon 
- it the work going on towards the delivery of a set of common container 
facilities.  There is potential for HimeMind to leverage this and for 
Avalon to leverage content in HiveMind with respect to this viewpoint 
and only this viewpoint.




Avalon is a community - and within that community is an effort to 
harmonize different directions in component models taking 
into account the differences across internal development, and 
>>external iniatives. HiveMind is another aspect in that picture.
>>This means more potential, leveraged code, skills, knowledge,
>>users, etc.  I happen to think that there is potential in getting
>>together and talking about things like leverage, synergy, projects,
>>etc.


I've considered HiveMind an experiment, and experiment that 
> concludes when the community is formed and the code is mature.
> The nature of open source and the ASL is very fluid; the best
> ideas from HiveMind can be cherry-picked from the mature
codebase. What I'm nervous about is bringing HiveMind
into Avalon and mucking up other people's code with my vision.


Let me make something real clear

A HiveMind product will not land in Avalon. Period. Full-stop. 
Will-not-happen.  Get this notion of HiveMind in Avalon of you mind 
forever.  Can HiveMind contribute to what is happening in Avalon - yes. 
Is this clear to everyone on this list?  Avalon is not a resting place 
for a particular container project.  Avalon is not about incubation. 
HiveMind will not be some subproject in Avalon. I will not happen! Take 
my word for it. And this has nothing to do with HiveMind content - its 
simply a question concerning the strategy in Avalon.  The stategy is not 
about multiple containers - its not even about a single container.  Its 
about the contract and the framework for solutions.

I hope that helps clarify things a touch.  Sorry  if I sound like I'm 
repating myself but I'm kind of anoyed with some of the miss-information 
that has been floating around here recently!

;-)




While Hivemind is a virgin idea that needs community
building, and is not ready for Jakarta -- it is surely not 
ready for Avalon either.  I would be against its entry into 
>>>Jakarta ATM (and I doubt Howard would propose it).  However,
>>>I think it is ripe for foundry at jakarta commons or some
>>>place appropriate for starting a community.
Obviously it should be watched for eventual entry as a Jakarta 
>>> project.  Howard is obviously now qualified to sponsor it in
>>> the incubator himself (as I've pretty much vowed never to
>>> incubate anything ever again,
I'd rather focus my efforts outside of Apache than go through 
>>>that quagmire of bureaucratic procedure again**).


Well, the incubator will be a challenge but there will be explicit rules for leaving incubation and
I won't tolerate the incubators going beyond their mandate. The mandate is to show an active
community working together and to ensure that there are no IP problems in HiveMind or its depdendant
libraries. We will ensure that the mandate and exit rules are explicit before we start. 
Agreed.

Those procedures have been develped with the principal of holding the 
Incubator PMC accountable step by step from the point of view of people 
aiming to exit incubation.  The procedures should help make an exit 
rapid and successful.



Howard - can you do me a favour and kick of a thread actually 
detailing what we want - and throw into it what you think or don't 
think  should be your relationship with Avalon.  Please keep in mind that 
everything I've seen so far suggests that you have a 12-18 out-of-date 
picture of what avalon is and what avalon is doing - and I want to clear 
that up. I suggested you post a message on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as part of the 
process. I still think that that the right place to discuss this.


I have a backlog of avalon-dev mail to catch up on.


No problem.
Don't hesitate to jump in with questions.

As an Avalon principal, I can assure you that Avalon

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On 12/1/03 2:47 AM, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I thought you ended our discussion?  Okay I guess not.  My point continues
to be that I don't think Howard should be forced and that if HiveMind builds
a community, it is perfectly welcome here regardless of cooperation with
Avalon.  Avalon has no stranglehold on frameworks.

If you agree with me then why is this so emotional to you?  Nevermind, lets
end this, you get the last word.  ;-)

-Andy

> 
> 
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps you missed that part of my message.
> 
> No - I didn't miss anything.
> 
> What you could do is try to add some rationalization around your
> arguments instead of making negative assertions about a project
> you are not involved with and are not interested in.
> 
> The rest of your email is snipped because it is simply diverging
> from the real question concerning potential.  It seems to me your
> trying to derail that potential.  Well, sorry, I'm not going to be
> derailed.  I have genuine interests in what happens here and I would
> like to hear from Howard about what he wants and what he thinks the
> potential synergy could play out with mutual benefit.
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On 12/1/03 2:02 AM, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> End of discussion.
> 
> 

Excellent.

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Howard M. Lewis Ship]

> > I prefer to see Hivemind established as a community (as far 
> as I know Howard
> > is the only member of the community ATM) before exploring 
> as you say.  I see
> > no reason to deprive Howard of the opportunity to establish 
> Hivemind and
> > build a community.  

That's what is, in fact, surprising to me ... a small community for HiveMind formed 
pretty much
spontaneously. Like Tapestry, the bulk of the code is from me, but some very 
significant design
ideas, naming conventions and techniques have come form the community and/or been 
voted on by the
nascent community.

> 
> 
> What I would like to do is to hear from Howard himself (or anyone 
> working on the HiveMind project)!  I'm particularly interested in how 
> Avalon can leverage some of the technologies in HiveMind, and I'm 
> equally confident in the ability of Avalon to provide 
> value-add to the 
> HimeMind project - and I'm not talking about classic avalon component 
> interfaces - I'm talking about generic container-side facilities.
> 
> The is a potential for mutual benefit.
> Isn't that worth exploring?

I aggree with Andy's comments below ... you can't "incubate" HiveMind inside Avalon. 
My Blob
(http://javatapestry.blogspot.com) discusses this as well, with some other insights 
(partly into my
own neuroticism).


> 
> Avalon is a community - and within that community is an effort to 
> harmonize different directions in component models taking 
> into account 
> the differences across internal development, and external iniatives. 
> HiveMind is another aspect in that picture.  This means more 
> potential, 
> leveraged code, skills, knowledge, users, etc.  I happen to 
> think that 
> there is potential in getting together and talking about things like 
> leverage, synergy, projects, etc.

I've considered HiveMind an experiment, and experiment that concludes when the 
community is formed
and the code is mature. The nature of open source and the ASL is very fluid; the best 
ideas from
HiveMind can be cherry-picked from the mature codebase. What I'm nervous about is 
bringing HiveMind
into Avalon and mucking up other people's code with my vision.


> 
> > While Hivemind is a virgin idea that needs community
> > building, and is not ready for Jakarta -- it is surely not 
> ready for Avalon
> > either.  I would be against its entry into Jakarta ATM (and 
> I doubt Howard
> > would propose it).  However, I think it is ripe for foundry 
> at jakarta
> > commons or some place appropriate for starting a community. 
>  Obviously it
> > should be watched for eventual entry as a Jakarta project.  
> Howard is
> > obviously now qualified to sponsor it in the incubator 
> himself (as I've
> > pretty much vowed never to incubate anything ever again, 
> I'd rather focus my
> > efforts outside of Apache than go through that quagmire of 
> bureaucratic
> > procedure again**).

Well, the incubator will be a challenge but there will be explicit rules for leaving 
incubation and
I won't tolerate the incubators going beyond their mandate. The mandate is to show an 
active
community working together and to ensure that there are no IP problems in HiveMind or 
its depdendant
libraries. We will ensure that the mandate and exit rules are explicit before we 
start. 

> Howard - can you do me a favour and kick of a thread actually 
> detailing 
> what we want - and throw into it what you think or don't 
> think  should 
> be your relationship with Avalon.  Please keep in mind that 
> everything 
> I've seen so far suggests that you have a 12-18 out-of-date 
> picture of 
> what avalon is and what avalon is doing - and I want to clear 
> that up. 
> I suggested you post a message on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as part of the 
> process. I 
> still think that that the right place to discuss this.

I have a backlog of avalon-dev mail to catch up on.

> 
> As an Avalon principal, I can assure you that Avalon is not a 
> threat to 
> the potential of an independent HiveMind project (irrespective of 
> Andrew's ideas of reality).  Start talking with us (here or 
> there) and 
> you may find an ally.
> 

Of course, while the HiveMind IP fiasco resolves itself, I have some spare time to 
catch up. To be
honest, one of the things that has been an issue for me is the Avalon documentation; 
many of my
questions aren't resolved by the docs I could find, and I have been short on time for 
wading into
the code.

Howard


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Perhaps you missed that part of my message.  
No - I didn't miss anything.

What you could do is try to add some rationalization around your
arguments instead of making negative assertions about a project
you are not involved with and are not interested in.
The rest of your email is snipped because it is simply diverging
from the real question concerning potential.  It seems to me your
trying to derail that potential.  Well, sorry, I'm not going to be
derailed.  I have genuine interests in what happens here and I would
like to hear from Howard about what he wants and what he thinks the 
potential synergy could play out with mutual benefit.

Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote in haste:
I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.


Personally - I'm interested in getting some feedback from Howard on a
number of question I've posted to him on this list and remain hopeful
that he or other members of the HiveMind team will leverage the pool of
opinions and talent over on Avalon - as a mutually interesting exercise
(just as members of that same pools are interested in leveraging the
content and knowlege from the HiveMind team).  As far as I can se the
question of collaboration remains completely open - after all - no
discussion has taken place todate either here on over on avalon.
I think  it would be good to at least do some exploration of mutual
interests - don't you?


I feel a Jon coming on.  "Your itch not mine" -- However, after your private
rants to (at?) me I kind of doubt how genuine this much more eloquent email
is.  
LOL

Andrew, you stooping at little low even by your standards.

;-)

Don't worry, you'll get a chance to express your yourself!

But let's not miss the the question "I think it would be good to at 
least do some exploration of mutual interests - don't you?".  You claim 
is that this is my itch - not yours.  My claim is that this is a 
community itch - not something personal.

There is a potential benefit here!
Isn't this worth exploring?

In truth, a rather virgin Hivemind would (ironically considering the
name) be consumed by Avalon rather than affecting Avalon.


Maybe you may have a disconnected idea of what Avalon is and what it is 
doing.  If you take a look at the archives you will see some posts 
addressing the HimeMind project both before and after this thread was 
initiated.  What you will see is technical and community issues being 
raised and discussed.  One thing is clear - avalon is not a candidate 
incubator for HiveMind - avalon is about a single product.  Does that 
imply consumption?  Yes - if consumption were appropriate - the majority 
of opinion over at avalon is that it is not.


You may find
emailing me personally to be rather disappointing as I say pretty much the
same things though sometimes more succinctly.  Personally, I feel your
effort is more likely intent to prevent an alternative to Avalon.


You sinking down low again!

You made some assertions implying that Avalon considered itself as an 
only solution (you opinion). You went on presented a (weak) 
justification for that position.  My personal email to you expressed my 
personal opinion concerning, you inaccuracy of the assertions, my 
confusion pertaining to you justification, and my request for an 
explanation.

Instead of attempting to sidetrack the discussion around Andrew and his 
personal in-tray - lets focus on the HiveMind community and its 
role/relevance/synergy within the Apache community.  I figure that there 
is value to be gained - but value requires dialogue and interaction.

So far there has not been no dialogue nor interaction.
That's the issue to address today.

I prefer to see Hivemind established as a community (as far as I know Howard
is the only member of the community ATM) before exploring as you say.  I see
no reason to deprive Howard of the opportunity to establish Hivemind and
build a community.  


What I would like to do is to hear from Howard himself (or anyone 
working on the HiveMind project)!  I'm particularly interested in how 
Avalon can leverage some of the technologies in HiveMind, and I'm 
equally confident in the ability of Avalon to provide value-add to the 
HimeMind project - and I'm not talking about classic avalon component 
interfaces - I'm talking about generic container-side facilities.

The is a potential for mutual benefit.
Isn't that worth exploring?

I do however apologize for attributing the email containing the following
statement to you.  It was actually from Danny Angus, however the sentiment
appears to coincide with yours wouldn't you agree?
"The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
If you see what I mean."


No.

I personally don't look at Avalon as the end game.  Avalon is a 
community of people who happen to be focussed on this subject area. 
There is a lot of stuff happening in this domain.  Avalon is rapidly 
evolving and incorporating new ideas and solutions from users such as 
Dany (and hundreds of others) combined with multiple external projects 
in the same area.

Avalon is a community - and within that community is an effort to 
harmonize different di

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On 11/30/03 11:56 PM, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Andrew:
> 
> Why don't you just get to the issue.  You chose to piss on project your
> not involved with, not interested in, and not even tracking.  From this
> position, you chose to criticise both the project and me personally.
> Presumably you did this for some reason that you feel is justified.  I
> think you choice of phrase could have much more creative, yes, even
> constructive. 
> 
> Not withstanding, let's not fall back on Howard as the standing excuse!
> 
> 
> So get to the point - explain to me why you fell "Avalon" is so threatening.
>


Perhaps you missed that part of my message.  I'll repeat the most important
parts of it for your convenience:

"
I prefer to see Hivemind established as a community (as far as I know Howard
is the only member of the community ATM) before exploring as you say.  I see
no reason to deprive Howard of the opportunity to establish Hivemind and
build a community. 
"
and

"
The truth is that the Avalon "brand" is nothing to be sought while Jakarta
is.  Being consumed by Avalon will, of course, make building a community
more difficult.  While Hivemind is a virgin idea that needs community
building, and is not ready for Jakarta -- it is surely not ready for Avalon
either.
"

As for you, I find your need to hold a dual personal discussion distasteful
if not duplicitous as I stated already and this is the reason I feel
justified in questioning your intentions.  Perhaps you can offer guidance on
why my feelings on this matter were not clear enough?  Feel free to mail
them to the list rather than to me personally.  I monitor the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list fairly regularly and thus you can be assured that I'll
see it.

Thus the intended content of my original message is unchanged:

1. Howard should be encouraged to found the HiveMind community as he sees
fit within the normal social boundries (he's not getting a jakarta
subproject until its ready and he'll be forced into the incubator quagmire
to get there until enough people realize the incubator is a bad idea)
2. HiveMind should not be forced to combine with Avalon
3. Avalon should not be forced to be subservient to HiveMind
4. Live and let live
5. communication regarding Jakarta should be open and on the lists

I thought it was pretty clear from the start, but I guess I failed to
communicate it clearly enough.

-Andy
 
> Stephen.

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Andrew C. Oliver]

>> I say
>> that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
>> wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
>> I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
>> Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
>> his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
>> him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.
> 
> 
> Personally - I'm interested in getting some feedback from Howard on a
> number of question I've posted to him on this list and remain hopeful
> that he or other members of the HiveMind team will leverage the pool of
> opinions and talent over on Avalon - as a mutually interesting exercise
> (just as members of that same pools are interested in leveraging the
> content and knowlege from the HiveMind team).  As far as I can se the
> question of collaboration remains completely open - after all - no
> discussion has taken place todate either here on over on avalon.
> 
> I think  it would be good to at least do some exploration of mutual
> interests - don't you?
>

I feel a Jon coming on.  "Your itch not mine" -- However, after your private
rants to (at?) me I kind of doubt how genuine this much more eloquent email
is.  In truth, a rather virgin Hivemind would (ironically considering the
name) be consumed by Avalon rather than affecting Avalon.  You may find
emailing me personally to be rather disappointing as I say pretty much the
same things though sometimes more succinctly.  Personally, I feel your
effort is more likely intent to prevent an alternative to Avalon.

I prefer to see Hivemind established as a community (as far as I know Howard
is the only member of the community ATM) before exploring as you say.  I see
no reason to deprive Howard of the opportunity to establish Hivemind and
build a community. 

I do however apologize for attributing the email containing the following
statement to you.  It was actually from Danny Angus, however the sentiment
appears to coincide with yours wouldn't you agree?

"The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
If you see what I mean."

The truth is that the Avalon "brand" is nothing to be sought while Jakarta
is.  Being consumed by Avalon will, of course, make building a community
more difficult.  While Hivemind is a virgin idea that needs community
building, and is not ready for Jakarta -- it is surely not ready for Avalon
either.  I would be against its entry into Jakarta ATM (and I doubt Howard
would propose it).  However, I think it is ripe for foundry at jakarta
commons or some place appropriate for starting a community.  Obviously it
should be watched for eventual entry as a Jakarta project.  Howard is
obviously now qualified to sponsor it in the incubator himself (as I've
pretty much vowed never to incubate anything ever again, I'd rather focus my
efforts outside of Apache than go through that quagmire of bureaucratic
procedure again**).

I do not see a reason while my stating this creates the level of personal
angst for you that it more obviously did in your private mails to me nor do
I see the need for the duplicity of posting a more frank and angry mail to
me followed by one also on the list.  I really don't have time for two
threads and am rather conceptually against the idea.  Though I suppose I
could combine my replies on-list if you prefer.

-Andy

** Although what a certain person did to avoid it was wrong although I can't
say anything about it as I don't think it was on the public list although it
damn well should have been.
 
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
service frameworks.  
Andrew:

The Avalon community very aware of the the different approaches that 
exist.  If your following the Avalon dev list you would be aware of 
ongoing discussions concerning different approaches in the 
container/component space - the benefits and disadvantages, emergent 
opportunities, brick-walls, etc.

I also must say that I hate the "come discuss this in
'our' house" approach to collaboration.
I'm surprised that you feel this way.  If you were subscribed to Avalon 
dev you would have been aware of discussions concerning HiveMind before 
the subject came up here.  Several members were discussing this subject 
at a technical level that would not make sense on this list.  My 
invitation to Howard (that seems to have offended you for reasons that I 
don't understand) was based on the interests in getting some thoughts 
from the Howard and other members of the HiveMind community on aspect 
relating to collaboration with Avalon.  Perhaps we have different ideas 
on what that means - for me at least is about sharing ideas and talking 
- its not (as you suggest) a notion of territory to be protected.

I hope that Howard or other members of the HiveMind team take up that 
invitation because there is potential synergy.


One size does not fit all and
Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true for it.  


Interestingly, the activities over on avalon over the past year have 
been addressing many of the deeper issues implied by you conclusion. 
What does one size mean?  Is size adaptive?  How does one deliver the 
the parametrized solution that best fits the size that is needed?  All 
of these question are being addressed within Avalon today. I also happen 
to to think that Howard and the HiveMind team could contribute to that 
and I also think that the more recent work in Avalon could contribute to 
HimeMind.

I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.


Personally - I'm interested in getting some feedback from Howard on a 
number of question I've posted to him on this list and remain hopeful 
that he or other members of the HiveMind team will leverage the pool of 
opinions and talent over on Avalon - as a mutually interesting exercise 
(just as members of that same pools are interested in leveraging the 
content and knowlege from the HiveMind team).  As far as I can se the 
question of collaboration remains completely open - after all - no 
discussion has taken place todate either here on over on avalon.

I think  it would be good to at least do some exploration of mutual 
interests - don't you?

Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework / status

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Ear is better, mostly itches now.  Don't think I blew the drum as I can hear
fine.  However I now have a cold too. :-(

-Andy

On 11/26/03 8:03 AM, "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm trying to track down that myself. I need to give my friends at WebCT a
> call, to see where they
> are with the software grant. Between that, ApacheCon, a bad cold (how's that
> ear, Andy?) and the
> 9-to-5 (oh, and painters in my house) I'm falling a little behind.
> 
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
> http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:29 PM
>> To: Jakarta General List
>> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
>> 
>> 
>> +1 - there is room enough.
>> 
>> On a related note, what is the current status of HiveMind?
>> the site is 
>> still blanked out in Commons.  Could someone please update
>> general as to 
>> the current situation re: HiveMind?
>> 
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
>>> service frameworks.  I also must say that I hate the "come
>> discuss this in
>>> 'our' house" approach to collaboration.   One size does not
>> fit all and
>>> Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true
>> for it.  I say
>>> that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community
>> builder and if he
>>> wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores
>> me personally,
>>> I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
>>> Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do
>> so; however, if
>>> his approach is different enough to warrant its own show
>> then I encourage
>>> him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.
>>> 
>>> We have Struts, Turbine, and Avalon.  We have Velocity, JSP,
>> XSLT, etc.  We
>>> have commons digester and XMLBeans...  None are "preferred"
>> and BTW Avalon
>>> isn't even "preferred" as Tomcat, for instance, doesn't use it.
>>> 
>>> To suggest that there can be only one "true" service
>> framework is misguided,
>>> IMHO.
>>> 
>>> -Andy
>>> 
>>> On 11/18/03 12:49 AM, "Stephen McConnell"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>> Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>> Howard:
>>>> 
>>>> As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be
>> interesting to
>>>> discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put
>> forward you
>>>> thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on
>> collaboration.  I think
>>>> some good points have already been put on the table for
>> working together
>>>> and for working apart - but just at the moment these
>> thoughts are only
>>>> on the table and no real discussion is happening as a
>> result.  I think
>>>> that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers, Steve.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>>>>> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>>>>> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
>>>>> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
>>>>> http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>> Stephen McConnell
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
>>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework / status

[Weaver, Scott]

I for one am hoping the IP stuff is resolved soon.  We are planning to evaluate 
Hivemind along with a couple other component frameworks for Jetspeed 2 to replace the 
temporary Fulcrum implementation that is current in place.  I have been reading the 
Hivemind docs and must say I am pretty excited play around with it.

Regards,
** 
| Scott T Weaver |
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| 
| Apache Jetspeed Portal Project |
| Apache Pluto Portlet Container |
**

> -Original Message-
> From: Howard M. Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:03 AM
> To: 'Jakarta General List'
> Subject: RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework / status
> 
> I'm trying to track down that myself. I need to give my friends at WebCT a
> call, to see where they
> are with the software grant. Between that, ApacheCon, a bad cold (how's
> that ear, Andy?) and the
> 9-to-5 (oh, and painters in my house) I'm falling a little behind.
> 
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
> http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:29 PM
> > To: Jakarta General List
> > Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
> >
> >
> > +1 - there is room enough.
> >
> > On a related note, what is the current status of HiveMind?
> > the site is
> > still blanked out in Commons.  Could someone please update
> > general as to
> > the current situation re: HiveMind?
> >
> > Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> > >I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
> > >service frameworks.  I also must say that I hate the "come
> > discuss this in
> > >'our' house" approach to collaboration.   One size does not
> > fit all and
> > >Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true
> > for it.  I say
> > >that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community
> > builder and if he
> > >wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores
> > me personally,
> > >I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
> > >Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do
> > so; however, if
> > >his approach is different enough to warrant its own show
> > then I encourage
> > >him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.
> > >
> > >We have Struts, Turbine, and Avalon.  We have Velocity, JSP,
> > XSLT, etc.  We
> > >have commons digester and XMLBeans...  None are "preferred"
> > and BTW Avalon
> > >isn't even "preferred" as Tomcat, for instance, doesn't use it.
> > >
> > >To suggest that there can be only one "true" service
> > framework is misguided,
> > >IMHO.
> > >
> > >-Andy
> > >
> > >On 11/18/03 12:49 AM, "Stephen McConnell"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>Howard:
> > >>
> > >>As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be
> > interesting to
> > >>discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put
> > forward you
> > >>thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on
> > collaboration.  I think
> > >>some good points have already been put on the table for
> > working together
> > >>and for working apart - but just at the moment these
> > thoughts are only
> > >>on the table and no real discussion is happening as a
> > result.  I think
> > >>that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.
> > >>
> > >>Cheers, Steve.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>--
> > >>>Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > >>>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> > >>>http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> > >>>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
> > >>>http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework / status

[Howard M. Lewis Ship]

I'm trying to track down that myself. I need to give my friends at WebCT a call, to 
see where they
are with the software grant. Between that, ApacheCon, a bad cold (how's that ear, 
Andy?) and the
9-to-5 (oh, and painters in my house) I'm falling a little behind.

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com

> -Original Message-
> From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:29 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
> 
> 
> +1 - there is room enough. 
> 
> On a related note, what is the current status of HiveMind? 
> the site is 
> still blanked out in Commons.  Could someone please update 
> general as to 
> the current situation re: HiveMind?
> 
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
> >I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
> >service frameworks.  I also must say that I hate the "come 
> discuss this in
> >'our' house" approach to collaboration.   One size does not 
> fit all and
> >Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true 
> for it.  I say
> >that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community 
> builder and if he
> >wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores 
> me personally,
> >I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
> >Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do 
> so; however, if
> >his approach is different enough to warrant its own show 
> then I encourage
> >him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.
> >
> >We have Struts, Turbine, and Avalon.  We have Velocity, JSP, 
> XSLT, etc.  We
> >have commons digester and XMLBeans...  None are "preferred" 
> and BTW Avalon
> >isn't even "preferred" as Tomcat, for instance, doesn't use it.
> >
> >To suggest that there can be only one "true" service 
> framework is misguided,
> >IMHO.
> >
> >-Andy
> >
> >On 11/18/03 12:49 AM, "Stephen McConnell" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Howard:
> >>
> >>As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be 
> interesting to
> >>discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put 
> forward you
> >>thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on 
> collaboration.  I think
> >>some good points have already been put on the table for 
> working together
> >>and for working apart - but just at the moment these 
> thoughts are only
> >>on the table and no real discussion is happening as a 
> result.  I think
> >>that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.
> >>
> >>Cheers, Steve.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--
> >>>Howard M. Lewis Ship
> >>>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> >>>http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> >>>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
> >>>http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>>>-Original Message-
> >>>>From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Stephen McConnell
> >>>>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
> >>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>>my personal home page:
> >>>>
> >>>>Howard:
> >>>>
> >>>>Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas 
> of interest?
> >>>>
> >>>>There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are
> >>>>complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and 
> several areas in
> >>>>Avalon which after review your material a

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Tim O'Brien]

+1 - there is room enough. 

On a related note, what is the current status of HiveMind? the site is 
still blanked out in Commons.  Could someone please update general as to 
the current situation re: HiveMind?

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
service frameworks.  I also must say that I hate the "come discuss this in
'our' house" approach to collaboration.   One size does not fit all and
Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true for it.  I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.
We have Struts, Turbine, and Avalon.  We have Velocity, JSP, XSLT, etc.  We
have commons digester and XMLBeans...  None are "preferred" and BTW Avalon
isn't even "preferred" as Tomcat, for instance, doesn't use it.
To suggest that there can be only one "true" service framework is misguided,
IMHO.
-Andy

On 11/18/03 12:49 AM, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 

Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
   

I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.
 

Howard:

As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be interesting to
discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put forward you
thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on collaboration.  I think
some good points have already been put on the table for working together
and for working apart - but just at the moment these thoughts are only
on the table and no real discussion is happening as a result.  I think
that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.
Cheers, Steve.



   

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
 

-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen McConnell
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   

I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on
 

my personal home page:

Howard:

Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?

There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are
complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in
Avalon which after review your material are complimentary
with your own 
efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I
would very much like to discuss this further together with
other members 
of the Avalon crew.

Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:

   

  http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers, Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   

 



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Andrew C. Oliver]

I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
service frameworks.  I also must say that I hate the "come discuss this in
'our' house" approach to collaboration.   One size does not fit all and
Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true for it.  I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.

We have Struts, Turbine, and Avalon.  We have Velocity, JSP, XSLT, etc.  We
have commons digester and XMLBeans...  None are "preferred" and BTW Avalon
isn't even "preferred" as Tomcat, for instance, doesn't use it.

To suggest that there can be only one "true" service framework is misguided,
IMHO.

-Andy

On 11/18/03 12:49 AM, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>> I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.
> 
> 
> Howard:
> 
> As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be interesting to
> discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put forward you
> thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on collaboration.  I think
> some good points have already been put on the table for working together
> and for working apart - but just at the moment these thoughts are only
> on the table and no real discussion is happening as a result.  I think
> that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.
> 
> Cheers, Steve.
> 
> 
> 
>> --
>> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
>> http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen McConnell
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on
>>> 
>>> my personal home page:
>>> 
>>> Howard:
>>> 
>>> Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?
>>> 
>>> There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are
>>> complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in
>>> Avalon which after review your material are complimentary
>>> with your own 
>>> efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I
>>> would very much like to discuss this further together with
>>> other members 
>>> of the Avalon crew.
>>> 
>>> Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:
>>> 
>> 
>>http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
>> 
>> I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
>> 
>> Cheers, Stephen.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-- 
Andrew C. Oliver
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI

http://jakarta.apache.org/poi
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and are almost
definitely not shared by the Apache Software Foundation, its board or its
general membership.  In fact they probably most definitively disagree with
everything espoused in the above email.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.


Howard:

As mentioned earlier there are some things that would be interesting to 
discuss over on the avalon dev list.  Perhaps you could put forward you 
thoughts about the potential or lack thereoff on collaboration.  I think 
some good points have already been put on the table for working together 
and for working apart - but just at the moment these thoughts are only 
on the table and no real discussion is happening as a result.  I think 
that could change if we were to go beyond mutual monotoring.

Cheers, Steve.



--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com

-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen McConnell
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on 
my personal home page:

Howard:

Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?

There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are 
complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in 
Avalon which after review your material are complimentary 
with your own 
efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I 
would very much like to discuss this further together with 
other members 
of the Avalon crew.

Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:

   http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers, Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Howard M. Lewis Ship]

I'm moniroting the avalon dev list.

--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
http://javatapestry.blogspot.com

> -Original Message-
> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen McConnell
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on 
> my personal home page:
> 
> Howard:
> 
> Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?
> 
> There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are 
> complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in 
> Avalon which after review your material are complimentary 
> with your own 
> efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I 
> would very much like to discuss this further together with 
> other members 
> of the Avalon crew.
> 
> Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:
> 
   http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers, Stephen.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on my personal home page:
Howard:

Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?

There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are 
complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in 
Avalon which after review your material are complimentary with your own 
efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I 
would very much like to discuss this further together with other members 
of the Avalon crew.

Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:

  http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers, Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[hlship]

I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on my personal home page:

http://home.comcast.net/~hlship/

This includes most documentation, but excludes JavaDoc, Source Xref, etc.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > this proposal is that HiveMind be a top-level Jakarta project
> 
> > In terms of homes, I can see a number of possible options:
> 
> > 3) Chuck it over to Avalon
> 
> 
> I've snipped out my opinions on the other options; not feeling much like 
> re-re-hashing what basically are the same differences of opinion 
> everytime :D.
> 
> But this one I will give some more thought (background: I'm an avalon 
> committer who has evaluated HiveMind to some extent). First off: 
> HiveMind definately fits the avalon charter. The problem space it plays 
> in is roughly the same as the one avalon plays in.
> 
> But I'm weary of two things:
> 
> 1) community seperation. There is very little community overlap between 
> HiveMind and Avalon atm. Some attempts were made from both sides to 
> perhaps create some synergy, but fact-of-the-matter is that community 
> reuse is even harder than code reuse, and its not happening atm.
> 
> 2) subprojects don't work well for avalon. Avalon has suffered greatly 
> in the past from having multiple subprojects (what were subsubprojects 
> at the time, even subsubsubprojects, as avalon was a jakarta subproject) 
> with somewhat seperate communities. We really don't want that to happen 
> again.
> 
> Howard lists some of many technical points (like type-1 vs type-2 vs 
> type-3 IoC, flexibility vs security, block vs module, 
> interception&dynamism vs declaration&validation) where HiveMind differs 
> in approach from avalon, but I find those a lot less worrying than the 
> points above. I'm quite sure that if some of the most active HiveMind 
> and avalon coders get together on some kind of integration, it could be 
> done before christmas :D
> 
> 
> I suggest that, as that seems to be the general preference, the HiveMind 
> community sees about becoming a jakarta subproject, knowing that seeking 
> a home at avalon now or in the future is an option open to exploration 
> at any time.
> 
> ---
> 
> Danny Angus wrote:
> 
>  > I did wonder if there would be support @avalon for an alternative
>  > approach as an avalon sub-project.
> 
> I think its safe to say that there is some, but as an avalon sub-project 
> I think HiveMind would be a lot less autonomous than it would be as a 
> jakarta subproject.
> 
>  > The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be
>  > seen by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather
>  > than as one of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
> 
> I'm not that afraid that this will pose an issue. After all, avalon is 
> still linked to from the jakarta front page!
> 
>  > but I don't want Jakarta to be accused of trying to replace Avalon,
>  > and I guess that will mean involving Avalon folks in the discussion.
> 
> I don't think that will be an issue, but thanks for the heads-up!
> 
> 
> cheers!
> 
> 
> - Leo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Leo Simons]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

this proposal is that HiveMind be a top-level Jakarta project

In terms of homes, I can see a number of possible options:

3) Chuck it over to Avalon


I've snipped out my opinions on the other options; not feeling much like 
re-re-hashing what basically are the same differences of opinion 
everytime :D.

But this one I will give some more thought (background: I'm an avalon 
committer who has evaluated HiveMind to some extent). First off: 
HiveMind definately fits the avalon charter. The problem space it plays 
in is roughly the same as the one avalon plays in.

But I'm weary of two things:

1) community seperation. There is very little community overlap between 
HiveMind and Avalon atm. Some attempts were made from both sides to 
perhaps create some synergy, but fact-of-the-matter is that community 
reuse is even harder than code reuse, and its not happening atm.

2) subprojects don't work well for avalon. Avalon has suffered greatly 
in the past from having multiple subprojects (what were subsubprojects 
at the time, even subsubsubprojects, as avalon was a jakarta subproject) 
with somewhat seperate communities. We really don't want that to happen 
again.

Howard lists some of many technical points (like type-1 vs type-2 vs 
type-3 IoC, flexibility vs security, block vs module, 
interception&dynamism vs declaration&validation) where HiveMind differs 
in approach from avalon, but I find those a lot less worrying than the 
points above. I'm quite sure that if some of the most active HiveMind 
and avalon coders get together on some kind of integration, it could be 
done before christmas :D

I suggest that, as that seems to be the general preference, the HiveMind 
community sees about becoming a jakarta subproject, knowing that seeking 
a home at avalon now or in the future is an option open to exploration 
at any time.

---

Danny Angus wrote:

> I did wonder if there would be support @avalon for an alternative
> approach as an avalon sub-project.
I think its safe to say that there is some, but as an avalon sub-project 
I think HiveMind would be a lot less autonomous than it would be as a 
jakarta subproject.

> The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be
> seen by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather
> than as one of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
I'm not that afraid that this will pose an issue. After all, avalon is 
still linked to from the jakarta front page!

> but I don't want Jakarta to be accused of trying to replace Avalon,
> and I guess that will mean involving Avalon folks in the discussion.
I don't think that will be an issue, but thanks for the heads-up!

cheers!

- Leo



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Stephen McConnell]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:

An article on The Server Side
(http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22371) started me
thinking again about HiveMind today.  The major issues mentioned there are
the same as mentioned by Howard below:
 

I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon 
and vice-versa, but they are really quite different beasts.  
The type-1 vs. type-2/type-3 split is intrinsic and difficult 
to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a module doesn't map so 
easily into the  Avalon space, and HiveMind's free-for-all 
approach doesn't jive with Avalon's dogmatic security model
(including its explicit application construction descriptor).
 

Are these really incompatible concepts?  

My impression is that Howard's assessment of Avalon is based on the 
Phoenix container. Howard is perhaps unaware of that over the last year 
or so a lot of development has been going on that is resulting in the 
establishment of a set of common containment facilities.  These include 
automated assembly, composite component management, component 
meta-models, deployment frameworks, development and management tools, etc.

I think Howard's point concerning the type-X issue is non-trivial - but 
not because of any insurmountable technical issue - instead, its much 
more a question of maintaining clarity and consistency within a 
component model. I fully expect to see the Avalon platform incorporate 
these approaches - but in a way that is complete and consistent.


Isn't Merlin, for example, trying to do more with auto-assembly?  

DIR="LTR">

Assembly management is a facilities included in the avalon-activation 
package.  It provides support for automation of assembly processes, 
eliminating the need to explicitly declare consumption/production 
relationships.  The focus of attention should really be on the 
facilities - Merlin is just an example of a container that leverages 
these features extensively.


Doesn't our model allow us to push services to be used rather than having to pull them from a service manager?  I really don't see why this is an either-or issue.

Its not an either-or issue.  Both push and pull models of service 
acquisition are possible, preemtive or dynamic, etc.  This is an area 
that is being worked on at the moment. I would be interested in hearing 
from some the HiveMind guys about their thoughts on this area as its a 
subject I happen to be addressing with respect to the Turbine components.


Likewise, free-for-all vs security can be viewed as a policy.

I suggest that people give some thought to how TO collaborate with HiveMind
and Avalon.  I think that the combination of people and technologies could
be great.
It would certainly be interesting to get together with the HiveMind guys 
perhaps over on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and push some ideas around.  As a minimum it 
would provide a chance for the Avalon crew to learn more about HiveMind 
content and ambitions and for the HiveMind crew to catch up where Avalon 
is today and where it is going.

Cheers, Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Noel J. Bergman]

An article on The Server Side
(http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22371) started me
thinking again about HiveMind today.  The major issues mentioned there are
the same as mentioned by Howard below:

> > I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon and
vice-versa,
> > but they are really quite different beasts.  The type-1 vs.
type-2/type-3
> > split is intrinsic and difficult to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a
> > module doesn't map so easily into the  Avalon space, and HiveMind's
> > free-for-all approach doesn't jive with Avalon's dogmatic security model
> > (including its explicit application construction descriptor).

Are these really incompatible concepts?  Isn't Merlin, for example, trying
to do more with auto-assembly?  Doesn't our model allow us to push services
to be used rather than having to pull them from a service manager?  I really
don't see why this is an either-or issue.

Likewise, free-for-all vs security can be viewed as a policy.

I suggest that people give some thought to how TO collaborate with HiveMind
and Avalon.  I think that the combination of people and technologies could
be great.

--- Noel


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Berin Loritsch]

J Aaron Farr wrote:
FYI:

   I think someone wanted this to get forwarded to the Avalon 'general' mailing
list, but since that doesn't exist, I thought I'd send it to our dev list. 

For the Avaloners:

There's been a bit of discussion lately on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about what to do with
Hivemind seeing that it has started to outgrow its current location in
commons-sandbox.  Some have suggested that it fits better over here in Avalon
(as a sub-project) than in Jakarta.  In some respects, I agree.  I think its a
little light to be its own top-level project (hivemind.apache.org) and if you
look at the jakarta charters vs avalon charters, Hivemind falls more on the
Avalon side of things.  Not sure what Howards thoughts are on that.


Hmm.  The thing is if it is "chucked over here", the whole Hivemind approach
will be factored toward the way we are doing things.  We only have so many
developers, and supporting something like this would be kind of a strain on our
resources.
Have the IP issues been sorted out with this package?  There are a whole host
of questions that we would need to sort out, PMC to PMC.  In the interest of
fairness, I think we should seriously talk about that in that capacity.  We
would, of course, include Howard in on the conversation.


--- Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Howard wrote:



3) Chuck it over to Avalon

I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon and vice-versa,
but they are really quite different beasts.  The type-1 > vs. type-2/type-3
split is intrinsic and difficult to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a
module doesn't map so easily into the  Avalon space, and HiveMind's
free-for-all approach doesn't jive with Avalon's dogmatic security model
(including its explicit application construction descriptor).
I didn't mean to suggest that you should try to move avalon architecture
towards hivemind or vice versa,
but I did wonder if there would be support @avalon for an alternative
approach as an avalon sub-project.
The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
If you see what I mean.
Of course you went through this whole debate when we discussed whether we
needed Tapestry as an alternative to Struts, as equal members of Jakarta
neither approach can be seen to be in any way an "endorsed" or
"favourite". The same (IMO) would not be true for service frameworks if
Hivemind was a Jakarta project not an Avalon one. Hivemind would be seen by
some to be Jakarta's favoured solution.
FWIW I'm certainly not going to oppose this, Hivemind seems to be a well
thought out proposal, but I don't want Jakarta to be accused of trying to
replace Avalon, and I guess that will mean involving Avalon folks in the
discussion.
Imagine the reaction there would be if I proposed a "make" utility as a
Jakarta sub-project, and perhaps you'll get the thrust of my concern.
d.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---
  jaaron  
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[J Aaron Farr]

FYI:

   I think someone wanted this to get forwarded to the Avalon 'general' mailing
list, but since that doesn't exist, I thought I'd send it to our dev list. 

For the Avaloners:

There's been a bit of discussion lately on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about what to do with
Hivemind seeing that it has started to outgrow its current location in
commons-sandbox.  Some have suggested that it fits better over here in Avalon
(as a sub-project) than in Jakarta.  In some respects, I agree.  I think its a
little light to be its own top-level project (hivemind.apache.org) and if you
look at the jakarta charters vs avalon charters, Hivemind falls more on the
Avalon side of things.  Not sure what Howards thoughts are on that.


--- Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Howard wrote:
> 
> 
> > 3) Chuck it over to Avalon
> 
> > I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon and vice-versa,
> > but they are really quite different beasts.  The type-1 > vs. type-2/type-3
> > split is intrinsic and difficult to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a
> > module doesn't map so easily into the  Avalon space, and HiveMind's
> > free-for-all approach doesn't jive with Avalon's dogmatic security model
> > (including its explicit application construction descriptor).
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that you should try to move avalon architecture
> towards hivemind or vice versa,
> but I did wonder if there would be support @avalon for an alternative
> approach as an avalon sub-project.
> 
> The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
> by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
> of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
> If you see what I mean.
> 
> Of course you went through this whole debate when we discussed whether we
> needed Tapestry as an alternative to Struts, as equal members of Jakarta
> neither approach can be seen to be in any way an "endorsed" or
> "favourite". The same (IMO) would not be true for service frameworks if
> Hivemind was a Jakarta project not an Avalon one. Hivemind would be seen by
> some to be Jakarta's favoured solution.
> 
> FWIW I'm certainly not going to oppose this, Hivemind seems to be a well
> thought out proposal, but I don't want Jakarta to be accused of trying to
> replace Avalon, and I guess that will mean involving Avalon folks in the
> discussion.
> 
> Imagine the reaction there would be if I proposed a "make" utility as a
> Jakarta sub-project, and perhaps you'll get the thrust of my concern.
> 
> d.

> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

---
  jaaron  

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Danny Angus]

Howard wrote:


> 3) Chuck it over to Avalon

> I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon and
vice-versa,
> but they are really quite different beasts.  The type-1 > vs.
type-2/type-3
> split is intrinsic and difficult to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a
module
> doesn't map so easily into the  Avalon space, and HiveMind's free-for-all
> approach doesn't jive with Avalon's dogmatic security model
> (including its explicit application construction descriptor).

I didn't mean to suggest that you should try to move avalon architecture
towards hivemind or vice versa,
but I did wonder if there would be support @avalon for an alternative
approach as an avalon sub-project.

The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
If you see what I mean.

Of course you went through this whole debate when we discussed whether we
needed Tapestry as an alternative to Struts, as equal members of Jakarta
neither approach can be seen to be in any way an "endorsed" or
"favourite". The same (IMO) would not be true for service frameworks if
Hivemind was a Jakarta project not an Avalon one. Hivemind would be seen by
some to be Jakarta's favoured solution.

FWIW I'm certainly not going to oppose this, Hivemind seems to be a well
thought out proposal, but I don't want Jakarta to be accused of trying to
replace Avalon, and I guess that will mean involving Avalon folks in the
discussion.

Imagine the reaction there would be if I proposed a "make" utility as a
Jakarta sub-project, and perhaps you'll get the thrust of my concern.

d.



***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. 
If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to 
the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the 
message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its 
contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data 
corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any  responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be 
inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining 
written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender 
accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of 
the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company 
Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of 
computer viruses.

**


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[hlship]

> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> 
> > I still ask myself why we can't put HiveMind as its own project under
> > the Jakarta umbrella.
> 
> Isn't that what this proposal is proposing?  If it isn't, then
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the wrong list to propose it to.
> 
> >
> > We have projects with a much smaller scope as "normal" jakarta projects
> > and we have and had framework projects such as Cocoon, Avalon or Turbine
> > outside of the commons.
> >
> > IMHO the scope of HiveMind is already to big for the commons which I see
> > as "software snacks": Small, easy to swallow and a side order for larger
> > projects.
> >
> >
>

Yes, this proposal is that HiveMind be a top-level Jakarta project; a peer to (say) 
Log4J and Tapestry.

The commons is largely supposed to be for toolboxes; libraries that contain individual 
utility classes (commons-lang) or frameworks with a very precise, very focused use 
(commons-logging). 

Although you could scavenge a lot of useful stuff out of HiveMind, it is intended for 
use as a cohesive unit.

In terms of homes, I can see a number of possible options:

1) Reject HiveMind outright --- and make Howard very sad.

In this case, I would reorganize the Tapestry build to accomidate having HiveMind as a 
sub-project (once the grants from WebCT come through). I feel that is less than ideal; 
despite the overlap, and evolution of ideas from Tapestry into HiveMind, I'd prefer to 
keep them seperate, with seperate teams.

2) Keep it in the commons

I have no real objection to this personally, but HiveMind doesn't quite fit with the 
commons charter, for the reasons discussed above (and in the commons charter).

3) Chuck it over to Avalon

I've looked to see how we could graft HiveMind into Avalon and vice-versa, but they 
are really quite different beasts.  The type-1 vs. type-2/type-3 split is intrinsic 
and difficult to reconcile.  HiveMind's concept of a module doesn't map so easily into 
the Avalon space, and HiveMind's free-for-all approach doesn't jive with Avalon's 
dogmatic security model (including its explicit application construction descriptor).

4) New TLD

I think HiveMind is a totally useful swiss-army knife that opens up the doors for a 
lot of really terrific approaches to solving common development problems. However, 
it's still a bit light to be a TLD ... something like 6600 NCLOC if memory serves 
(don't bet on it!).  Certainly if boil-the-ocean frameworks like Struts, Tapestry and 
Turbine aren't TLDs then HiveMind isn't either.

5) New Jakarta Project

As stated in the proposal; this is my preference.


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Rodney Waldhoff]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:

> I still ask myself why we can't put HiveMind as its own project under
> the Jakarta umbrella.

Isn't that what this proposal is proposing?  If it isn't, then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the wrong list to propose it to.

>
> We have projects with a much smaller scope as "normal" jakarta projects
> and we have and had framework projects such as Cocoon, Avalon or Turbine
> outside of the commons.
>
> IMHO the scope of HiveMind is already to big for the commons which I see
> as "software snacks": Small, easy to swallow and a side order for larger
> projects.
>
>   Regards
>   Henning
>
>
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 20:23, Martin Cooper wrote:
> > Accepting this proposal as currently written would also involve the
> > acceptance of five new individuals as Apache committers. Based on where
> > the HiveMind repo currently is/was, that implies giving five unknowns (to
> > me, anyway) access to Jakarta Commons as a whole. I'm not so sure I'd be
> > willing to sign up for that.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> >  On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > >
> > > (0) Rationale
> > >
> > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > > reusable services.
> > >
> > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > > operating within a single JVM.
> > >
> > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> > >
> > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > > contributions to those extension points.
> > >
> > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > > in disparate applications.
> > >
> > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > > manner.
> > >
> > > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > > (type-3).
> > >
> > > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > > as a significant part of Vista.
> > >
> > > (1) Scope of the package
> > >
> > > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > > classes and servi

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Danny Angus]

> I still ask myself why we can't put HiveMind as its own project under
> the Jakarta umbrella.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, if the criteria are met and the
political implications of creating a new sub-project are acceptable.
Otherwise a spell in commons will help to cement the community and do no
harm.

I would like to know if this has been proposed to Avalon, if not why not,
if so what has been their reaction.

I'm not suggesting that it should be, just that it might be a better fit
with their charter.

d.




***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. 
If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to 
the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the 
message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its 
contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data 
corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any  responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be 
inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining 
written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender 
accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of 
the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company 
Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of 
computer viruses.

**


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Henning Schmiedehausen]

I still ask myself why we can't put HiveMind as its own project under
the Jakarta umbrella.

We have projects with a much smaller scope as "normal" jakarta projects
and we have and had framework projects such as Cocoon, Avalon or Turbine
outside of the commons.

IMHO the scope of HiveMind is already to big for the commons which I see
as "software snacks": Small, easy to swallow and a side order for larger
projects.

Regards
Henning


On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 20:23, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Accepting this proposal as currently written would also involve the
> acceptance of five new individuals as Apache committers. Based on where
> the HiveMind repo currently is/was, that implies giving five unknowns (to
> me, anyway) access to Jakarta Commons as a whole. I'm not so sure I'd be
> willing to sign up for that.
> 
> --
> Martin Cooper
> 
> 
>  On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> 
> >
> > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> >
> > (0) Rationale
> >
> > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > reusable services.
> >
> > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > operating within a single JVM.
> >
> > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> >
> > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > contributions to those extension points.
> >
> > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > in disparate applications.
> >
> > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > manner.
> >
> > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > (type-3).
> >
> > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > as a significant part of Vista.
> >
> > (1) Scope of the package
> >
> > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> > useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> > and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> > License.
> >
> > (1.1) Interaction with other packages
> >
> > HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
> > including: 

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Craig R. McClanahan]

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> Part of the proposal indicates the jakarta-commons is not the right home for
> HiveMind, as it does not fit in with the charter of the commons (too many
> dependencies, etc.).
> 

Even if it were proposed that Hivemind stay in jakarta-commons, I do not share
Martin's concern.  There have been several cases where a number of
new-to-Jakarta committers have joined, and (because of the technical
limitations of our permissions infrastructure) have been granted
jakarta-commons karma to work on the package they are interested in.

In practice, this has not caused any problems.  If we are still concerned that
it might, we've got a jakarta-commons infrastructure issue to deal with, not a
concern about any particular package and its associated committers.

> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Craig


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Henri Yandell]

Quoting:

"Note: the current code base reflects an alternate package name,
org.apache.commons.hivemind.  Subsequent research has shown that
HiveMind is not a suitable candidate for the Jakarta Commons. The
existing code base will be migrated to the new package during the
transition out of the sandbox."

Although Commons-Sandbox access is open to all of Jakarta [or even
Apache], I think we can be pretty limited on the Commons access as
Hivemind is proposing being a new Jakarta sub-project.

Hen

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Martin Cooper wrote:

> Accepting this proposal as currently written would also involve the
> acceptance of five new individuals as Apache committers. Based on where
> the HiveMind repo currently is/was, that implies giving five unknowns (to
> me, anyway) access to Jakarta Commons as a whole. I'm not so sure I'd be
> willing to sign up for that.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
>  On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
>
> >
> > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> >
> > (0) Rationale
> >
> > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > reusable services.
> >
> > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > operating within a single JVM.
> >
> > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> >
> > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > contributions to those extension points.
> >
> > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > in disparate applications.
> >
> > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > manner.
> >
> > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > (type-3).
> >
> > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > as a significant part of Vista.
> >
> > (1) Scope of the package
> >
> > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> > useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> > and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> > License.
> >
> > (1.1) Interaction with other packages
> >
> > HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commo

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[hlship]

Part of the proposal indicates the jakarta-commons is not the right home for HiveMind, 
as it does not fit in with the charter of the commons (too many dependencies, etc.).

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> Accepting this proposal as currently written would also involve the
> acceptance of five new individuals as Apache committers. Based on where
> the HiveMind repo currently is/was, that implies giving five unknowns (to
> me, anyway) access to Jakarta Commons as a whole. I'm not so sure I'd be
> willing to sign up for that.
> 
> --
> Martin Cooper
> 
> 
>  On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> 
> >
> > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> >
> > (0) Rationale
> >
> > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > reusable services.
> >
> > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > operating within a single JVM.
> >

> > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> >
> > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > contributions to those extension points.
> >
> > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > in disparate applications.
> >

> > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > manner.
> >
> > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using

> > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > (type-3).
> >
> > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > as a significant part of Vista.
> >
> > (1) Scope of the package
> >

> > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> > useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> > and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> > License.
> >
> > (1.1) Interaction with other packages
> >
> > HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
> > including: commons-lang, commons-beanutils, commons-collections and
> > commons-logging.
> >
> > HiveMind makes use of the Javassist bytecode generation library, which
> > is available under the MPL (Mozilla public license).
> >
> > (2) Identify th

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Martin Cooper]

Accepting this proposal as currently written would also involve the
acceptance of five new individuals as Apache committers. Based on where
the HiveMind repo currently is/was, that implies giving five unknowns (to
me, anyway) access to Jakarta Commons as a whole. I'm not so sure I'd be
willing to sign up for that.

--
Martin Cooper


 On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:

>
> Proposal for the HiveMind Project
>
> (0) Rationale
>
> HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> reusable services.
>
> Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> operating within a single JVM.
>
> Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
>
> Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> contributions to those extension points.
>
> Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> in disparate applications.
>
> The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> manner.
>
> HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> connections between services by setting properties of the services
> (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> (type-3).
>
> HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> as a significant part of Vista.
>
> (1) Scope of the package
>
> The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> License.
>
> (1.1) Interaction with other packages
>
> HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
> including: commons-lang, commons-beanutils, commons-collections and
> commons-logging.
>
> HiveMind makes use of the Javassist bytecode generation library, which
> is available under the MPL (Mozilla public license).
>
> (2) Identify the initial source for the package
>
> The initial code base has been developed by Howard M. Lewis Ship within
> the Jakarta Commons incubator.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind
>
> (2.1) Identify the base name for the package
>
> org.apache.hivemind
>
> Note: the current code base reflects an alternate package name,
> org.apache.commons.hivemind.  Subsequent research has shown that
> HiveMind is not a suitable candidate for the Jakarta Commo

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Jim Jagielski]

Once rec'd by myself, I will make note of it.

Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> 
> 
> Just wanted to confirm that the software grant agreement is being
> processed by WebCT and should hopefully be ready soon.
> 
> Prashant
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:46 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
> 
> 
> >From talking with Prashant, the grant is in-progress. Given that these
> discussions tend to ramble on for a couple of weeks, I think the grant
> will be ready long before any real action is necessitated.
> 
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web=20
> Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> >=20
> > So this proposal is dependent on the grant?
> >=20
> > Any time line on that?
> >=20
> > [not trying to get in the way, jsut to do the pmc-thing]
> >=20
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >=20
> > > The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind
> 
> > > CVS repository, the temporary downloads directory and (most=20
> > > regrettably) the HiveMind home page.
> > >
> > > This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other=20
> > > (and possibly more important part) is the software grant that is=20
> > > being processed inside WebCT.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> > > Components
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> > > >
> > > > Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue=20
> > > > that was happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> > > >
> > > > I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is=20
> > > > everything squared away and happy?
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> 
> > > > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > > > >
> > > > > (0) Rationale
> > > > >
> > > > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable,=20
> > > > > configurable, reusable services.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in=20
> > > > > terms of Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most=20
> > > > > useful ideas from Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE,=20
> > > > > JMX and SOAP, but removes the aspects that are typically=20
> > > > > overkill for most applications, such as service remoteability=20
> > > > > and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a natural network of=20
> > > > > related services and configuration data, all operating within a=20
> > > > > single JVM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service=20
> > > > > definition and implementation. This is manifested by a division=20
> > > > > of services into an interface definition and a service=20
> > > > > implementation as well as a split between defining a service (as
> 
> > > > > part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> 
> > > > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different=20
> > > > > module).
> > > > >
> > > > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented=20
> > > > > architecture to a sophisticated configuration architecture; the=20
> > > > > configuration architecture is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in=20
> > > > > model, wherein modules may define configuration extension points
> 
> > > > > and multiple modules may provide contributions to those=20
> > > > > extension points.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an=20
> > > > > application. The HiveMind framework and the services it provides
> 
> > > > > may be easily combined with application-specific services and=20
> > > > > configurations for use in disparate applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services
> 
> > > > > and configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add=20
> > >

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Nayak, Prashant]

Just wanted to confirm that the software grant agreement is being
processed by WebCT and should hopefully be ready soon.

Prashant


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:46 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework


>From talking with Prashant, the grant is in-progress. Given that these
discussions tend to ramble on for a couple of weeks, I think the grant
will be ready long before any real action is necessitated.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> 
> So this proposal is dependent on the grant?
> 
> Any time line on that?
> 
> [not trying to get in the way, jsut to do the pmc-thing]
> 
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind

> > CVS repository, the temporary downloads directory and (most 
> > regrettably) the HiveMind home page.
> >
> > This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other 
> > (and possibly more important part) is the software grant that is 
> > being processed inside WebCT.
> >
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> > Components
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> > >
> > > Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue 
> > > that was happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> > >
> > > I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is 
> > > everything squared away and happy?
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> > >
> > > >

> > > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > > >
> > > > (0) Rationale
> > > >
> > > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, 
> > > > configurable, reusable services.
> > > >
> > > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in 
> > > > terms of Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most 
> > > > useful ideas from Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, 
> > > > JMX and SOAP, but removes the aspects that are typically 
> > > > overkill for most applications, such as service remoteability 
> > > > and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a natural network of 
> > > > related services and configuration data, all operating within a 
> > > > single JVM.
> > > >
> > > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service 
> > > > definition and implementation. This is manifested by a division 
> > > > of services into an interface definition and a service 
> > > > implementation as well as a split between defining a service (as

> > > > part of a HiveMind module) and providing

> > > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different 
> > > > module).
> > > >
> > > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented 
> > > > architecture to a sophisticated configuration architecture; the 
> > > > configuration architecture is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in 
> > > > model, wherein modules may define configuration extension points

> > > > and multiple modules may provide contributions to those 
> > > > extension points.
> > > >
> > > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an 
> > > > application. The HiveMind framework and the services it provides

> > > > may be easily combined with application-specific services and 
> > > > configurations for use in disparate applications.
> > > >
> > > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services

> > > > and configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add 
> > > > for HiveMind is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall 
> > > > developer productivity.

> > > > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that 
> > > > is frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML 
> > > > configuration files, logging of method invocations, and lazy 
> > > > creation of services, is handled by the HiveMind framework in a 
> > > > consistent, robust, and well-documented manner.
> > > >
> > > > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache 
> > > > Avalon project, with significant d

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Henri Yandell]

Cool. Could this be added as a note to the proposal? As a dependency or
whatever.

Hen

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> >From talking with Prashant, the grant is in-progress. Given that these discussions 
> >tend to ramble on for a couple of weeks, I think the grant will be ready long 
> >before any real action is necessitated.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> >
> > So this proposal is dependent on the grant?
> >
> > Any time line on that?
> >
> > [not trying to get in the way, jsut to do the pmc-thing]
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind CVS
> > > repository, the temporary downloads directory and (most regrettably) the
> > > HiveMind home page.
> > >
> > > This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other (and
> > > possibly more important part) is the software grant that is being
> > > processed inside WebCT.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> > > Components
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> > > >
> > > > Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue that was
> > > > happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> > > >
> > > > I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is everything
> > > > squared away and happy?
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > > > >
> > > > > (0) Rationale
> > > > >
> > > > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > > > > reusable services.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > > > > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > > > > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > > > > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > > > > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > > > > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > > > > operating within a single JVM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > > > > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > > > > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > > > > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
>
> > > > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> > > > >
> > > > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > > > > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > > > > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > > > > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > > > > contributions to those extension points.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > > > > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > > > > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > > > > in disparate applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > > > > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > > > > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
>
> > > > > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > > > > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > > > > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > > > > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > > > > manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > > > > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > > > > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > > > > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > > > > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > > > > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > > > > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > > > > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > > > > connections between services by setting properties of the services
>
> > > > > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > > > > (type-3).
> > > > >
> > > > > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > > > > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > > > > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration manage

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[hlship]

>From talking with Prashant, the grant is in-progress. Given that these discussions 
>tend to ramble on for a couple of weeks, I think the grant will be ready long before 
>any real action is necessitated.

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> 
> So this proposal is dependent on the grant?
> 
> Any time line on that?
> 
> [not trying to get in the way, jsut to do the pmc-thing]
> 
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind CVS
> > repository, the temporary downloads directory and (most regrettably) the
> > HiveMind home page.
> >
> > This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other (and
> > possibly more important part) is the software grant that is being
> > processed inside WebCT.
> >
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> > Components
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> > >
> > > Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue that was
> > > happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> > >
> > > I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is everything
> > > squared away and happy?
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> > >
> > > >

> > > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > > >
> > > > (0) Rationale
> > > >
> > > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > > > reusable services.
> > > >
> > > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > > > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > > > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > > > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > > > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > > > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > > > operating within a single JVM.
> > > >
> > > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > > > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > > > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > > > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing

> > > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> > > >
> > > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > > > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > > > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > > > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > > > contributions to those extension points.
> > > >
> > > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > > > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > > > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > > > in disparate applications.
> > > >
> > > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > > > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > > > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.

> > > > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > > > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > > > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > > > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > > > manner.
> > > >
> > > > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > > > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > > > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > > > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > > > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > > > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > > > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > > > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > > > connections between services by setting properties of the services

> > > > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > > > (type-3).
> > > >
> > > > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > > > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > > > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > > > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > > > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > > > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > > > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > > > i

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Henri Yandell]

So this proposal is dependent on the grant?

Any time line on that?

[not trying to get in the way, jsut to do the pmc-thing]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind CVS
> repository, the temporary downloads directory and (most regrettably) the
> HiveMind home page.
>
> This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other (and
> possibly more important part) is the software grant that is being
> processed inside WebCT.
>
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web
> Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> >
> > Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue that was
> > happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> >
> > I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is everything
> > squared away and happy?
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> > >
> > > (0) Rationale
> > >
> > > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > > reusable services.
> > >
> > > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > > operating within a single JVM.
> > >
> > > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> > >
> > > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > > contributions to those extension points.
> > >
> > > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > > in disparate applications.
> > >
> > > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > > manner.
> > >
> > > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > > (type-3).
> > >
> > > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > > as a significant part of Vista.
> > >
> > > (1) Scope of the package
> > >
> > > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > > classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> > > useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> > > and, of course, documentation, all distribut

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[hlship]

The offending IP has been taken off-line: this includes the HiveMind CVS repository, 
the temporary downloads directory and (most regrettably) the HiveMind home page.

This proposal is half of the resolution to the IP issue. The other (and possibly more 
important part) is the software grant that is being processed inside WebCT.


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Creator, Tapestry: Java Web 
Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> 
> Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue that was
> happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.
> 
> I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is everything
> squared away and happy?
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:
> 
> >
> > Proposal for the HiveMind Project
> >
> > (0) Rationale
> >
> > HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> > reusable services.
> >
> > Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> > Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> > Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> > the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> > service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> > natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> > operating within a single JVM.
> >
> > Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> > and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> > interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> > between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> > the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
> >
> > Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> > sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> > is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> > configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> > contributions to those extension points.
> >
> > Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> > The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> > combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> > in disparate applications.
> >
> > The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> > configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> > is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> > HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> > frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> > logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> > by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> > manner.
> >
> > HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> > project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> > distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> > microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> > firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> > must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> > a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> > type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> > connections between services by setting properties of the services
> > (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> > (type-3).
> >
> > HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> > (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> > for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> > framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> > product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> > team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> > requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> > including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> > Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> > as a significant part of Vista.
> >
> > (1) Scope of the package
> >
> > The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> > classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> > useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> > and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> > License.
> >
> > (1.1) Interaction with other packages
> >
> > HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
> > including: commons-lang, commons-beanutils, commons-collections and
> > commons-logging.
> >
> > HiveMind makes use of the Javassist bytecode generation library, which
> > is available under t

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Henri Yandell]

Daft question, possibly, but could someone summarise the IP issue that was
happening over HiveMind and how it is currently resolved.

I've not been following the thread, but I've seen the noise. Is everything
squared away and happy?

Hen

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nayak, Prashant wrote:

>
> Proposal for the HiveMind Project
>
> (0) Rationale
>
> HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
> reusable services.
>
> Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
> Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
> Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
> the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
> service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
> natural network of related services and configuration data, all
> operating within a single JVM.
>
> Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
> and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
> interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
> between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
> the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
>
> Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
> sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
> is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
> configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
> contributions to those extension points.
>
> Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
> The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
> combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
> in disparate applications.
>
> The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
> configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
> is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
> HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
> frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
> logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
> by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
> manner.
>
> HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
> project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
> distributed configuration is unique among the available service
> microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
> firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
> must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
> a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
> type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
> connections between services by setting properties of the services
> (type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
> (type-3).
>
> HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
> (http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
> for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
> framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
> product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
> team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
> requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
> including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
> Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
> as a significant part of Vista.
>
> (1) Scope of the package
>
> The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
> classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
> useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
> and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
> License.
>
> (1.1) Interaction with other packages
>
> HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
> including: commons-lang, commons-beanutils, commons-collections and
> commons-logging.
>
> HiveMind makes use of the Javassist bytecode generation library, which
> is available under the MPL (Mozilla public license).
>
> (2) Identify the initial source for the package
>
> The initial code base has been developed by Howard M. Lewis Ship within
> the Jakarta Commons incubator.
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind
>
> (2.1) Identify the base name for the package
>
> org.apache.hivemind
>
> Note: the current code base reflects an alternate package name,
> org.apache.commons.hivemind.  Subsequent research has shown that
> HiveMind is not a suitable candidate for the Jakarta Commons. The
> existing code base will be migrated to the new package during the
> transition out of t

RE: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

[Mike]

Please turn off your receipt request when posting.

::>-Original Message-
::>From: Nayak, Prashant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
::>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:35 PM
::>To: Jakarta General List
::>Subject: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework
::>
::>
::>
::>Proposal for the HiveMind Project
::>
::>(0) Rationale
::>
::>HiveMind is a simple framework for creating pluggable, configurable,
::>reusable services. 
::>
::>Simple: HiveMind is a way to create a network of services in terms of
::>Java interfaces and classes; it cherry picks the most useful ideas from
::>Service Oriented Architectures such as J2EE, JMX and SOAP, but removes
::>the aspects that are typically overkill for most applications, such as
::>service remoteability and language neutrality. HiveMind creates a
::>natural network of related services and configuration data, all
::>operating within a single JVM.
::>
::>Pluggable: HiveMind enforces a complete separation of service definition
::>and implementation. This is manifested by a division of services into an
::>interface definition and a service implementation as well as a split
::>between defining a service (as part of a HiveMind module) and providing
::>the implementation of that service (potentially, in a different module).
::>
::>Configurable: HiveMind integrates a service oriented architecture to a
::>sophisticated configuration architecture; the configuration architecture
::>is adapted from the Eclipse plug-in model, wherein modules may define
::>configuration extension points and multiple modules may provide
::>contributions to those extension points.
::>
::>Reusable: HiveMind is a framework and container, but not an application.
::>The HiveMind framework and the services it provides may be easily
::>combined with application-specific services and configurations for use
::>in disparate applications.
::>
::>The API for HiveMind allows thread-safe, easy access to services and
::>configurations with a minimal amount of code. The value-add for HiveMind
::>is not just runtime flexibility: it is overall developer productivity.
::>HiveMind systems will entail less code; key functionality that is
::>frequently an after-thought, such as parsing of XML configuration files,
::>logging of method invocations, and lazy creation of services, is handled
::>by the HiveMind framework in a consistent, robust, and well-documented
::>manner.
::>
::>HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon
::>project, with significant differences. HiveMind's concept of a
::>distributed configuration is unique among the available service
::>microkernel's (Avalon, Keel, Spring, Picocontainer, etc.). Avalon is
::>firmly rooted in a type-1 inversion of control pattern (whereby services
::>must explicitly, in code, resolve dependencies between each other using
::>a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses a mix of type-2 and
::>type-3 IoC, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates
::>connections between services by setting properties of the services
::>(type-2) or making use of particular constructors for the services
::>(type-3).
::>
::>HiveMind represents a generous donation of code to the ASF by WebCT
::>(http://www.webct.com). HiveMind originated from internal requirements
::>for a flexible, loosely-coupled configuration management and services
::>framework for WebCT's industry-leading flagship enterprise e-learning
::>product, Vista. Several individuals in WebCT's research and development
::>team in addition to Mr. Howard Lewis Ship contributed to the
::>requirements and concepts behind HiveMind's current set of functionality
::>including Martin Bayly, Diane Bennett, Bill Bilic, Michael Kerr,
::>Prashant Nayak, Bill Richard and Ajay Sharda. HiveMind is already in use
::>as a significant part of Vista.
::>
::>(1) Scope of the package
::>
::>The package shall entail a core framework JAR (containing essential
::>classes and services), a standard library JAR (containing generically
::>useful services), along with ancillary artifacts such as Maven plug-ins
::>and, of course, documentation, all distributed under the Apache Software
::>License.
::>
::>(1.1) Interaction with other packages
::>
::>HiveMind has dependencies on several standard commons packages,
::>including: commons-lang, commons-beanutils, commons-collections and
::>commons-logging.
::>
::>HiveMind makes use of the Javassist bytecode generation library, which
::>is available under the MPL (Mozilla public license).
::>
::>(2) Identify the initial source for the package
::>
::>The initial code base has been developed by Howard M. Lewis Ship within
::>the Jakarta Commons incubator.
::>
::>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind
::>
::>(2.1) Identify the base name for the package
::>
::>org.apache.hivemind
::>
::>Note: the current code base reflects an alternate package name,
::>org.apache.commons.hivemind.  Subsequent research has shown that
::>HiveMind is not a suitable candidate for the Jakarta Commo