More comments inline...
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that
we want to
> support in M
I have not contributed to either the trunk or sandbox SCA code streams
so I hope you do not mind me commenting on this issue. I wonder if some
compromise could be reached at this point since I am certain the project
will suffer otherwise. Instead of starting from scratch, could we start
with
Ant
I'm disappointed that you have chosen this path. I will ask one more
time if you and Sebastien would consider collaborating with those of
us working on core2.
--
Jeremy
On Jul 7, 2006, at 11:53 PM, ant elder wrote:
Sebastien, lets just do it...this debate is going no where and as
ch
So I hope you don't mind if we also move core2 since I also don't
like working in others' sandboxes? This is not the best way to forge
consensus and community building in my opinion. If you want to go
down this direction I am truly sorry you have chosen not to engage on
core2. Perhaps you
I have a lot of comments inline but want to overall summarize by
saying I think we should address all of your concerns by
incrementally improving core2. As you said below, you are not arguing
for a rewrite and I think that would be the best way to accommodate
the wide variety of things the
Sebastien, lets just do it...this debate is going no where and as choosing
with a vote wasn't popular lets try your approach and see how it works.
After a couple of weeks take a checkpoint and decide whether or not to
continue. I don't like working in other peoples sandbox so I've created a
folder
More comments inline.
Jim Marino wrote:
Comments inline
On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy,
I won't comment on your attacks at the bottom of this email. I was
hoping for a more constructive technical discussion. I added my
answers and comments on the specific t
Comments inline
On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jeremy,
I won't comment on your attacks at the bottom of this email. I was
hoping for a more constructive technical discussion. I added my
answers and comments on the specific technical issues inline.
Jeremy Boynes
Jeremy,
I won't comment on your attacks at the bottom of this email. I was
hoping for a more constructive technical discussion. I added my answers
and comments on the specific technical issues inline.
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
My propos
On 7/6/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
All ideas that Sebastien has proposed are being considered - we had a
long discussion on these very things on IRC this morning. The main
questions being asked about his proposal are "what is the be
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether
they are working with others in the community. As you point out,
there has been quite a bit of discus
On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether
they are working with others in the community. As you point out,
there has been quite a bit of discuss
Jim Marino wrote:
We will only reach the right conclusion on
this important debate if we all engage constructively at a technical
level and evaluate new contributions and ideas in an open-minded way.
Your apparent characterization of Sebastien's constructive engagement
in this discussion as
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether they are
working with others in the community. As you point out, there has been
quite a bit of discussion over the last few days on how we should move
On 7/5/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
>
> My proposal is not to merge M1 and the core2 sandbox. I am
> proposing to start a new fresh code stream and build the runtime
> through baby steps. We may be able to reuse some piece
Jeremy, as you know, its been holidays in the US this week and that will be
why Sebastien was quiet over the weekend and Monday and Tuesday. I've found
all his past posts on this sandbox topic most constructive and helpful.
...ant
On 7/6/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 6,
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I just checked in sandbox/sebastien/m2-design/model.spi a set of
new interfaces. This is just an initial strawman to trigger a
constructive discussion
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I just checked in sandbox/sebastien/m2-design/model.spi a set of
new interfaces. This is just an initial strawman to trigger a
constructive discussion
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
I just checked in sandbox/sebastien/m2-design/model.spi a set of new
interfaces. This is just an initial strawman to trigger a
constructive discussion and ideas on how to best represent the
recursiv
Comments inline, thanks for some of the clarifications...
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
One of the big reasons for me is summed up well in Sebastien's
proposal:
"This will get our community member
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
My proposal is not to merge M1 and the core2 sandbox. I am
proposing to start a new fresh code stream and build the runtime
through baby steps. We may be able to reuse some pieces of existing
code, but more important is to engage o
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
One of the big reasons for me is summed up well in Sebastien's proposal:
"This will get our community members involved in building the runtime
together and will lead to a wider knowledge base that makes it
possible to
quickly im
On Jul 4, 2006, at 1:11 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
I think releasing every 4-6 weeks is probably a bit too often.
Most users won't want to upgrade so frequently, especially at
this stage of an incubator project when new releases may be a bit
unstable.
At this stage I think we need to have small, inc
I think releasing every 4-6 weeks is probably a bit too often.
Most users won't want to upgrade so frequently, especially at
this stage of an incubator project when new releases may be a bit
unstable. Another factor is the overhead involved in cutting a
release. On balance I'd suggest releasing
Jim,
Comments inline below.
Simon
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 3, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
From the scenarios we should derive technical
specifications, designs that implement those specifications, and
tests that validate that the implementations match the sp
Comments inline
On Jul 4, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Jojo wrote:
Hi,
I was trying to understand the sandbox and having difficulty in
making out
things. I thought I will bring some of these into this thread. I would
appreciate if somebody can helpme understand better.
1. Where is the client programm
Hi,
I was trying to understand the sandbox and having difficulty in making out
things. I thought I will bring some of these into this thread. I would
appreciate if somebody can helpme understand better.
1. Where is the client programming model ? I find some sample code in
samples\src\main\java\e
On Jul 3, 2006, at 11:31 PM, ant elder wrote:
On 7/3/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...and involve a lot less "upfront planning"?
In other words, people work on what interests them and the community
cuts a release when it decides a useful level of new functionality
has been reached
On 7/3/06, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I struggle with understanding the what and why of parts of the sandbox code
and hope bringing small bits over one step at a time will help with this.
What things are you struggling with? Perhaps clearing those up would
clear the air (as well as h
On 7/3/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...and involve a lot less "upfront planning"?
In other words, people work on what interests them and the community
cuts a release when it decides a useful level of new functionality
has been reached.
Can you provide pointers to any other Apache
On Jul 3, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Kevin Williams wrote:
My biggest concern is that we not end up with two active code
streams. That would be very confusing to a potential contributor
(and me). So, if there is value in both the trunk and the sandbox
then it seems that a merge is necessary.
I ag
On Jul 3, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
Some of the initial scenarios may end up in M2 and
I'm a bit worried that this will discourage people from working
on something important to them because it is not slated for a
predetermined milestone. For example, if some
My biggest concern is that we not end up with two active code streams.
That would be very confusing to a potential contributor (and me). So,
if there is value in both the trunk and the sandbox then it seems that a
merge is necessary. If only the sandbox has value then why not tag the
trunk a
On Jul 3, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
From the scenarios we should derive technical
specifications, designs that implement those specifications, and
tests that validate that the implementations match the
specifications.
This seems a bit heavy-weight for an open so
Jim Marino wrote:
Some of the initial scenarios may end up in M2 and
I'm a bit worried that this will discourage people from working on
something important to them because it is not slated for a
predetermined milestone. For example, if someone wanted to work on a
feature that was not p
Jim Marino wrote:
From the scenarios we should derive technical
specifications, designs that implement those specifications, and
tests that validate that the implementations match the specifications.
This seems a bit heavy-weight for an open source project. Are you
suggesting we need to
On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
One of the big reasons for me is summed up well in Sebastien's
proposal:
"This will get our community members involved in building the runtime
together and will lead to a wider knowledge base that makes it
possible to
quickly implement new funct
One of the big reasons for me is summed up well in Sebastien's proposal:
"This will get our community members involved in building the runtime
together and will lead to a wider knowledge base that makes it possible to
quickly implement new functionality in the future. It will also build a
communi
Why would we try this approach as opposed to the one Jeremy proposed,
i.e. moving what is already in sandbox to a branch or even trunk?
Since there are a number of initiatives people are already working on
in the sandbox codebase (e.g. Spring support, deployment,
conversations, data binding
On 6/30/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Stage the assembly of our M2 runtime.
I propose that we start a fresh stream for M2 and build the runtime
through
baby steps, in parallel with the scenario work. This will get our
community
members involved in building the runtim
Hi Clemens,
I changed the subject since your question may have more general
interest than the thread on scenarios...
An entry point (now renamed "service") would be discoverable through
a management API. There has been some talk about providing a Tuscany
management API so if you are inter
Jim
how would I discover an exposed entry point? end of day - it's a wsdl
... (looking into the API, some kind of entrypoint explorer
functionality would be cool ...)
/clemens
Jim Marino wrote:
Cool! When you have questions, ask away.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Clemens Utschig - Uts
Cool! When you have questions, ask away.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle) wrote:
at least I added a tag to the wiki page on it :-)
more to follow ..
Jim Marino wrote:
It would be good if I replied before sending :-) Sure, you can
add the scenario - you ju
at least I added a tag to the wiki page on it :-)
more to follow ..
Jim Marino wrote:
It would be good if I replied before sending :-) Sure, you can add
the scenario - you just need to create a wiki account if you don't
already have one. If you are interested in helping to create a JSF
int
Sure, you can add the scenario - you just need to create a wiki
account if you don't already have one. If you are interested in
helping to create a JSF integration, that would be fantastic.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle) wrote:
yup,
this is the reason wh
It would be good if I replied before sending :-) Sure, you can add
the scenario - you just need to create a wiki account if you don't
already have one. If you are interested in helping to create a JSF
integration, that would be fantastic.
Jim
On Jul 2, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 2, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle) wrote:
yup,
this is the reason why I ask :-) can someone add that (me?)
/clemens
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On 7/2/06, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I completly miss an end-to-end scenario .. like acce
More comments inline...
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that
we want to
> support in M
yup,
this is the reason why I ask :-) can someone add that (me?)
/clemens
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On 7/2/06, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I completly miss an end-to-end scenario .. like accessing a service
through tuscany ... say from a website (preferrably JSF).
On 7/2/06, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I completly miss an end-to-end scenario .. like accessing a service
through tuscany ... say from a website (preferrably JSF)..
helloworld via tuscany ... am I missing something?
We have a bunch of helloworld-esque samples
I completly miss an end-to-end scenario .. like accessing a service
through tuscany ... say from a website (preferrably JSF)..
helloworld via tuscany ... am I missing something?
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle) wrote:
Comments linline ...
Ji
On 7/2/06, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the purpose of scenarios is not to serve as tests, but to
define required functionality in terms that are meaningful from
a user perspective.
Agreed at the high level. At a low-level I don't see that there would
be much difference between
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Clemens Utschig - Utschig (Oracle) wrote:
Comments linline ...
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
>
Comments linline ...
Jim Marino wrote:
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that we
want
On Jul 2, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that
we want to
> support in M2.
>
> I'm thinking abou
My comments are inline below.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that we
want to
> support in M2.
>
> I'm thinking about concrete end to end scenarios that define the en
On Jul 1, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Oh look, there's an elephant in the sandbox.
On 6/30/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Stage the assembly of our M2 runtime.
I propose that we start a fresh stream for M2 and build the
runtime through
baby steps, in p
Oh look, there's an elephant in the sandbox.
On 6/30/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Stage the assembly of our M2 runtime.
I propose that we start a fresh stream for M2 and build the runtime through
baby steps, in parallel with the scenario work.
When I tried to make
On Jul 1, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that we
want to
> support in M2.
>
> I'm thinking about concrete end to end scenarios that define the
end user
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> 1. Use scenarios to drive the M2 work
> Start a community discussion on the end to end scenarios that we want to
> support in M2.
>
> I'm thinking about concrete end to end scenarios that define the end user
> experience and the overall story going from development,
Sebastien,
This sounds great to me. You may have intended this but, I think that
the scenarios should be implemented as we go resulting in new unit
tests, samples or sample apps by the time we are ready to release M2.
Also, I propose a scenario that involves data access and the transfer of
I have used the last two weeks studying our current code streams (M1 and
sandbox) and the evolving SCA specification.
During this exercise, I have realized that we have a LOT to do in order to
reach the level of function that supports the spec, as well as implement
additional interesting ideas th
62 matches
Mail list logo
