Implicit in this rewording is the understanding within the Tuscany community that there would be one Apache home for SDO Java development. When this thread is referenced in proposal for the new project, or discussions around it, it must be clear to the wider Apache community that the Tuscany community accepts that. Without this clear acceptance I fear the new project will face further periods of delay whilst questions are asked about the Tuscany communities intentions with regards to SDO Java development.
So the answer to your question is conditional. If the new project is accepted an an incubator .... - does not require Tuscany to implement SDO anymore --- yes - and still allows Tuscany to implement SDO --- no - and still allows Tuscany to use SDO or any other related technology? --- yes if the project is not accepted as an incubator ... - does not require Tuscany to implement SDO anymore --- yes - and still allows Tuscany to implement SDO --- yes - and still allows Tuscany to use SDO or any other related technology? --- yes Kelvin. On 25/02/2008, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > kelvin goodson wrote: > > There's been a discussion thread going for a while [1] in the Tuscany > > community with regards to shifting the Apache home for SDO Java work to > a > > new project. This has been going on in parallel to the discussion on > the > > incubator general list on establishing a new project, originally aimed > to > > be tightly scoped to JSR 235 (see [2] to jump into that thread at a > > location particularly relevant for this posting). > > > > I'd like to try to move the Tuscany side of the discussion along to some > > kind of conclusion. In view of that aim, I'd like to suggest that we > take > > a fresh look at the current state of the wording for the Tuscany > "charter", > > if that's what it's known as, that we arrived at during the graduation > vote > > [3]. > > > > I suggest .... > > > > ...establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation > > and maintenance of open-source software for distribution at no charge > > to the public, that simplifies the development, deployment and > management > > of distributed applications built as compositions of service > components. > > These components may be implemented with a range of technologies and > > connected using a variety of communication protocols. This software > will > > implement relevant open standards including, but not limited to, the > > SCA standard defined by the OASIS OpenCSA member section, and related > > technologies. > > > > The only edit here is that the current blessed version ends with ... > > "but not limited to, the SCA and SDO standards defined by the OASIS > OpenCSA > > member section" > > > > I urge you to give your attention to this in the near future please; > making > > this alteration would seem to be a necessary, but not sufficient, > element > > for altering the proposal for the new project. > > > > Kelvin. > > > > [1] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-user/200802.mbox/browser > > [2] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200802.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > [3] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200710.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > > > Trying to make sure I understand. Does that mean that the new charter: > - does not require Tuscany to implement SDO anymore > - and still allows Tuscany to implement SDO > - and still allows Tuscany to use SDO or any other related technology? > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
