incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <>
Subject Re: Apache Wink Proposal
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:38:50 GMT

I do think that "graduating" via a merger with the CXF implementation
and engagements with that community is a good goal to have. I believe
we call that out explicitly since we tell all projects that when the
time is ripe we can figure out where the project is gonna live. So +1
for that option.

I am looking at this from the point of view of...We are here now, what
can we do next? Would everyone like to take a look at the sources


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
> On Wed April 22 2009 1:07:39 pm Greg Truty wrote:
>> Hello all, I would like to formally present the incubator proposal for
>> Apache Wink, stand-alone REST toolkit supporting JAX-RS (JSR 311), a
>> client runtime and test cases (as well as other items). The full proposal
>> can be found on the wiki at:
>> .  We are looking forward to all questions and feedback, positive or
>> negative.  In addition, we welcome all participants and mentors to help
>> support the effort.
> I know you are expecting a response from me (I've talked to Dims about this
> already) so I might as well get it out of the way....  :-)
> So, basically, you wanted a JAX-RS implementation.  You looked at Apache CXF
> but it didn't completely meet your needs.   Instead of engaging with CXF
> (there wasn't any discussion about any of this on the CXF dev/users list) to
> enhance CXF, you fork it in house and update it and enhance it outside of any
> community.   Now you want to push it back into Apache, but not with any of the
> CXF community.    I just wanted to get that out in the open.    Two
> implementations isn't a bad thing (think Axis2 and CXF) but the way this was
> approached is a concern.
> Next come the hard questions:
> 1) The proposal mentions it's already JAX-RS TCK compliant.   From a JAX-RS
> standpoint, were do you see the community "growing"?   I've seen several
> projects that come in with their stated goals already "complete" and have a
> tough time getting new committers.
> 2) What "advantages" would it have over CXF's implementation and/or Jersey?
> (apart from the TCK compliance which CXF is working on now that we got the
> TCK)  Since Wink would be Apache licensed, I'd expect anything "cool" would be
> pulled into CXF anyway if possible.    One advantage of multiple Apache
> licensed implementations is that great ideas can also be pulled back and
> forth.   :-)        Obviously, I haven't seen the Wink code so I don't know
> how easy/hard that would be.
> One "question" I have when I see projects with duplicate goals is to see if
> the differences could be resolved to a point where only one project is needed.
> I remember with CXF and Axis 2 sitting down in a room at some conference
> several years ago (ApacheCon Austin maybe?  Don't really remember.) with Dan
> Diephouse, myself, Glen Daniels, Sanjiva and several others involved with both
> projects to try and resolve any issues and possibly merge things.    In that
> meeting, we really did conclude we had strong differences in opinions on
> designs, priorities, and ideas and it really wasn't possible.   That is quite
> OK.   At least the discussion occurred.     I haven't seen discussions like
> that with CXF/Wink.
> I guess from my standpoint, while I'm not "against" the proposal, I'd
> definitely like to see it have the option of "graduating" via a merger with
> the CXF implementation and engagements with that community.
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Davanum Srinivas ::

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

View raw message