This is a good description of what Tuscany does in addition to the spec implementation. Is everyone OK with adding this text or a simpler version of it to the overview page?
Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby, JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC. I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple vendors. This will not be required in all cases. An example of non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so standardization is unnecessary. On 10/3/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mike Edwards wrote: > > Folks, > > > > I'd like to offer a different perspective.... > > > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > >>> > >>> That all sounds good to me (assuming that means no work in Tuscany > >>> on OSOA > >>> things that are not public, which is what you mean right?) > >>> > >>> ...ant > >>> > >>> > >> > >> That's what I mean. > >> > > > > I believe that in addition to implementation of specifications that > > are coming out of both OSOA and OASIS, Tuscany does have another role. > > > > Tuscany is an implementation nursery for new areas of work that are > > not being worked in in places like OSOA and OASIS. Examples of what I > > am thinking about include new implementation types such as Ruby, > > JavaScript, XQuery and so on, plus new Binding types such as JSON-RPC. > > > > I think that it is a very valuable aspect of Tuscany to foster > > development of new and useful pieces of function such as these. At > > some point, some of these should look for a level of standardization > > resulting in the creation of a specification in one of the spec > > venues, in order to assure consistent implementations between multiple > > vendors. > > > > This will not be required in all cases. An example of > > non-standardization is the case of the PHP implementation of SCA where > > it is most likely that there will only ever by 1 implementation and so > > standardization is unnecessary. > > > > > > Yours, Mike. > > > > +1 to all that, it's a good description of what we are doing in Tuscany, > not incompatible with what we were saying in this thread as we were only > trying to clarify a position with respect to non-public spec work > happening in OSOA. > > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
