incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <>
Subject Re: Let's rewind!!! (Re: [VOTE] accept donation of a business process engine into the ServiceMix project)
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:23:10 GMT

Lance Waterman wrote:
> As one of the Sybase BPEL developers, this certainly sounds reasonable to
> me. Perhaps we can start a discussion around what the "bake off" criteria
> will look like ( i.e. what BPEL constructs are fully/half/not supported,
> what set of unit tests should be supported, etc ... ). As an example; in
> looking through the Agila code ( which could have rendered faulty
> assumptions ) it appears that the BPEL "Scope" construct is not currently
> supported. I rate "Scope" as quite important to have in a BPEL
> implementation and its not a simple thing to implement. Likewise, I am sure
> there are criteria that the Sybase donated engine does not fully measure
> against.

While I'm not sure how far along the BPEL engine in Agila is (Twister), 
I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at the same level of completeness 
as your implementation.


> Lance
> On 2/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <> wrote:
>> Bill Flood wrote:
>>> Geir, approaching Agila was our first avenue.  We looked at what they
>> had
>>> and I initiated several conversations about donating to that incubator
>>> project.
>>> We offered a base line upon which to build but there did not seem to be
>> any
>>> uptake although both committers said they were happy to have us come in
>> and
>>> provide coding help on what they already had.
>> I don't really know.  I wasn't part of that conversation, although I did
>> have a few discussions w/ people after this all started.
>> I expect that what you just said might have been the problem.  They
>> already had a BPEL engine, and it sounds like you were suggesting they
>> stop and reboot on your codebase.  After all, they have some users and
>> wouldn't want to just drop them.
>>> I was a little mystified.
>>> Jumping in and bringing their stuff up to where we already were seemed
>>> counter productive given the large gap in code maturity and capability
>> so we
>>> passed.
>>> Based on the support we have seen for our contribution from others in
>> Apache
>>> thus far, I have to believe that our impression wasn't just the result
>> of
>>> our inherent subjectivity
>>> I believe we did approach them in good faith and I'm not sure why there
>> was
>>> disinterest in our offer via Agila but here we are.  We left the
>> previous
>>> conversation on good terms.  At this point, my preference would be that
>> the
>>> Agila folks look at the contribution and see if they want to become part
>> of
>>> that larger community for this new baseline.  To me, it's not about
>>> ownership, it's about critical mass in the community to carry something
>>> forward.
>> How about making a fresh start then...  If the Agila people are
>> interested, put out a call for any and all other implementations of BPEL
>> that might be donated and build a larger community, mixing the best of
>> anything that is donated to get the best BPEL engine and community we can?
>> In the same way that we built Geronimo from "best of breed" J2EE-ish OSS
>> projects that are out there, I'm sure we could do a similar thing with
>> BPEL.
>> Maybe do a "bake off" to help find the best codebase, and have the
>> community collaborate around that?  (I'm not sure what that would
>> entail, actually...)
>> Would you be interested in that?
>> geir
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message