On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
if blaze's goal is to create a standardized widely available and
interoperable messaging solution (you forgot enterprise class)
why is it creating a new one, and not using JMS ?
Blaze's goal (AMQP) is to provide multple language implementations
of a
language-neutral, wire-level, protocol with a ton of detailed
semantics for
interoperable messaging. JMS is a a Java API.
I am wholly behind the goal of establishing an open standard protocol
for async messaging. Heck, I helped spec one out (which I would be
happy to see supplanted by something better!), but I fear the way the
protocol spec works here probably won't work well for an Apache project.
Blaze seems to be about about providing implementations of a
proprietary protocol controlled by a group of vendors and one major
customer. The protocol is specified behind closed doors with good
intentioned but legally nebulous licensing. Participation in the
protocol specification process by folks outside the initial group is
by submitting suggestions to a private channel. The protocol is
specifically controlled by a group of companies, with no provision
for individual participation. On the other hand, Apache is
specifically made up of individuals, not companies, and merit is
based on the actions of the individual.
The protocol being implemented is pretty much controlled by a
separate, closed body. There is presently no way for Apache
contributors to participate in, or even observe, the protocol
specification process. The eventual standards body to which it is to
be submitted is unknown, and there are definitely standards bodies
which are incompatible with Apache (any pay-to-play, or any barring
individual participation, tend to be difficult) style development.
So basically, if the project's goal is to provide a couple reference
implementations and various client libraries for an in-development
closed protocol (with well intentioned licensing) which is being
developed via a process which precludes participation by folks
working on the Apache project unless their employer (who may not even
be aware of their participation) signs an IP agreement? Even then,
the path to joining the protocol specification group is by submitting
suggestions to private discussion in which you are not included.
If the protocol came with the project, the protocol lived in a
standards body such as the IETF, or even if the protocol was being
developed in the open using an apache-style meritocracy, I would be
100% for this. As it stands, I worry that it is incompatible with
Apache.
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
