On Feb 3, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Meeraj, Jeremy
Please read my note again. At no point did I say or imply that BEA led
anything. The only thing I said about BEA was:
"the two companies who couldn't agree to do it together in Tuscany".
Is there anything incorrect about that sta
On Feb 3, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Meeraj Kunnumpurath wrote:
Paul,
The fork on Tuscany was not instigated by BEA. Of the three committers
who decided to leave Tuscany, due to technical differences and
otherwise, only Jim Marino was employed by BEA. Myself and Jeremy
Boynes were independent
On Jan 9, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
As you all know Yoko is being assimilated into CXF and Geronimo.
Both PMCs understand that they are responsible for the provenance
of the contributions that are being brought in. My question is
about what remains to be done on the *incuba
There is an updated license here:
http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/license.txt
and I've attached a copy of the text below. To my layman's
understanding that seems OK but it would be good to have official
blessing.
Thanks Janet for getting this through.
--
Jeremy
On Jan 7, 2008, at 3:56
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:46 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 12 December 2007 19:45, Niall Pemberton wrote:
I couldn't see a STATUS file in svn
You have mention this for the Yoko project as well, and I start to
wonder who
of us two has misunderstood what the so called "status file" is.
On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
--8<--
---
[ ] +1 Allow RAT to enter incubator, sponsored by IPMC
[ ] +0
[ ] -0
[ ] -1 Do no allow RAT to enter incubator
---
On Oct 15, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Is it stated somewhere that the Java SCA/SDO components are "core"
compared
to C++ and DAS?
And then in a coincidence of timing, there is this:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200710.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%3e
wh
On Oct 15, 2007, at 8:02 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Jeremy
Neither of the two independents
are active in the core project areas of Java SCA or SDO (they are
committing to the C++ implementation or to DAS).
Is it stated somewhere that the Java SCA/SDO components are "core"
compared
to C++
On Oct 13, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Ant,
Are there any issues that should be pointed out, such as the
(hopefully)
mechanical licensing header issue in stdcxx, or community
diversity, which
at least in part is measuring independence from corporate backing
(a popular
thread
On Sep 30, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sunday 30 September 2007 01:53, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The recent Tuscany distribution contains XSDs licensed under the OSOA
license[1] which contains the following:
"Permission to copy, make derivative works of, and distribute the
Se
The recent Tuscany distribution contains XSDs licensed under the OSOA
license[1] which contains the following:
"Permission to copy, make derivative works of, and distribute the
Service Component Architecture
JavaDoc, Interface Definition Files and XSD files in any medium
without fee or royalt
On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Dims has asked to see some progress on the Tuscany community front. I
have taken these artifacts down for now.
Jeremy, on this and the Tuscany SCA Java kernel, what is your take
on the
effect of the release vis-a-vis
Dims has asked to see some progress on the Tuscany community front. I
have taken these artifacts down for now.
--
Jeremy
On Mar 13, 2007, at 12:11 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 2.0-alpha-
incubating of the Kernel for SCA Java.
[VOTE] to
Dims has asked to see some progress on the Tuscany community front. I
have taken these artifacts down for now.
--
Jeremy
On Mar 12, 2007, at 11:59 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the
This may have been lost in the flood of other release mails - so far
was have +1's from Robert and Dims but still need a third.
Thanks
Jeremy
On Mar 18, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1
On 3/18/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 3/16/07, Je
Another vote that may have been lost in the flood. So far a +1 from
robert.
Thanks
--
Jeremy
On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:33 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/14/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2007, a
On Mar 18, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Irregardless of that, the IPMC could stipulate that releases are
"final
stepping stones" towards graduation, and require an active and diverse
community to allow for releases. After all, it is the Incubator
that does the
release (legally)
Tuscany has issues though. When you look at active committers (at
least one commit in the last 3 months) it is a different picture: 14
from IBM and 3 from elsewhere (83%). Worse, there are modules where
no non-IBM committer has ever been active (e.g. Java/SDO, Java/DAS, C+
+/*).
--
Jeremy
On Mar 16, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
Is everyone in ASF willing to be comfortable with the ASF stamp of
approval on a project that might still be in the process of vetting
code provenance, or still checking licenses, but chooses to do an
incubating release anyway?
As Dims, said
On Mar 15, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Frank Question, Would your vote be the same if you thought Tuscany
would graduate very soon?
Yes, my vote has nothing to do with Tuscany. I'm actually pretty
ambivalent about the result and was voting more for consistency
across TLPs tha
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:49 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for th
ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus
mirrors).
[X] +1
[ ] -1
TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.
[ ] +1
[X] -1
On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
If we accept this argument, then we naturally need a place where the
incubating "rel
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2007 20:07, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
There appears to be a bug in the gpg plugin for mvn. When I did this
release I used gpg:sign as a goal on the command line and that
consistently generates invalid keys for all except the last
On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:49 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/13/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specification V1.0:
http://mail-archives.apac
On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
On 3/15/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
the latest advice on best practice from cliff is that a separate
DISCLAIMER.txt is preferred to including the incubator disclaimer in
the NOTICE.txt. the reason is that the NOTICE.tx
On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:33 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 3/14/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:46 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> the source and binary kernel releases look identical
&
Thanks - it does.
FWIW my mailer sends .diff as application/octet-stream and .txt as
text/plain
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 3/14/07, Martin Sebor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks! There is also the less severe problem with ezmlm stripping
attachments from some
On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Thanks! There is also the less severe problem with ezmlm stripping
attachments from some posts (see INFRA-1194). So far I haven't been
able to identify what causes them to be removed. Does anyone have
any ideas?
Just from observation e.g. subm
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:53 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:46 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
the source and binary kernel releases look identical
zip errors in jars unpackaged from kernel-2.0-alpha-incubating.zip:
* core/src/test/resources/deployables/sample-calculator.jar
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:46 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
the source and binary kernel releases look identical
zip errors in jars unpackaged from kernel-2.0-alpha-incubating.zip:
* core/src/test/resources/deployables/sample-calculator.jar
* core/src/test/resources/repository/sample-calculator.ja
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 2.0-alpha-
incubating of the Kernel for SCA Java.
[VOTE] to release the kernel modules
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200703.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[VOTE] to release an amended version of the sample code
http:/
The Tuscany community recently voted to release version 1.0-
incubating of our implementation of the API classes for the OSOA
specification V1.0:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200703.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The source archives and RAT reports can be found at:
http
Passed with +1s from dims, jim, and pzf and no -1s
Thank you.
--
Jeremy
On Feb 26, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Resending as a [VOTE] thread as this one seems to be rambling ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Feb 25, 200
wrote:
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 2/26/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Resending as a [VOTE] thread as this one seems to be rambling ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Feb 25, 2007 6:34 AM
Subject: Ratify Tuscany vote to r
Thanks Dims.
We still need two more votes for approval - would a couple of other
IPMC members be able to take a quick look?
Thanks
--
Jeremy
On Feb 27, 2007, at 7:15 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
+1 from me.
-- dims
On 2/26/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Resending as a
Resending as a [VOTE] thread as this one seems to be rambling ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Feb 25, 2007 6:34 AM
Subject: Ratify Tuscany vote to release build dependencies
To: general@incubator.apache.org
The vote below was h
om: "ant elder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: EJB code dump, was: svn commit: r511225 [1/4]
On 2/25/07, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rfeng
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sunday 25 February 2007 22:34, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The vote below was held in the Tuscany podling to release two
artifacts that are used by other modules during the build process;
they are a podling-wide parent pom and configuration data
o ask the IPMC to approve the release.
--
Jeremy
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 25, 2007 6:14:15 AM PST
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: [RESULT] Release updated parent pom and buildtools
Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Passed wit
On Feb 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rfeng
Date: Fri Feb 23 22:26:55 2007
New Revision: 511225
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=511225
Log:
[sca-integration-branch] Add EJB reference binding (TUSCANY-1126)
-1
There has been no discussion at all about t
On Feb 20, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
I went through the process and attached is a patch for the site to
include Tuscany in the matrix.
AIUI though these should be applied/sent by a Officer
which I would assume in our case would the IPMC Chair.
Since
If we end up switching to the main repos, then I think the pom would
be fairly empty as the values in apache:3 would be reusable. I still
think it is worth having as it ties the podling back to the offical
project that is doing the releases.
If we keep as we are, the repository, pluginRepos
On Feb 22, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
NOTE: Both (1) and (2) can be taken care of by having the
org.apache:apache:3
artifact as the parent.Should that be a requirement?
(Actually, should
there be an incubator parent that lives in the middle?)
I made a start on such a pom
On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:05 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Regarding Bouncy Castle, IIRC they used to include the IDEA
algorithm in their distribution and provided a one-off for Geronimo
to use to bypass the patent issue. Not sure if that is an issue or
not for Tuscany but just a heads up.
Thank
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
== Tuscany ==
iPMC Reviewers: dims, jerenkrantz, yoavs, jukka, twl, noel
Tuscany provides infrastructure for developing service-oriented
applications
based on the OSOA specifications for Service Component Architecture
(SCA)
and Service Data
What we actually have in svn is a mvn pom which references jxta and
bouncycastle:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/java/sca/runtime/
services/discovery/jxta/pom.xml
The bouncycastle reference is there because jxta needs it; there is
no direct reference from our code.
My a
ndex: index.xml
===
--- index.xml (revision 509799)
+++ index.xml (working copy)
@@ -390,6 +390,30 @@
+
+ http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany";>
+ Apache Tuscany Project
+ Jeremy Boynes
+
+Apache Tuscany SCA Java Runtime
+
+
On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:27 PM, James M Snell wrote:
I've gone ahead and filed the export notification and updated the ASF
exports page [1]. I also added an appropriate notification to the
distributions README.
[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/exports/
In Tuscany our next release will have a
;s best interests I think. Hopefully I haven't
misunderstood something here, but if so, ignore this... :-)
Good luck on the release!
Regards,
- Dan
On 11/21/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have recently started a vote on tuscany-dev to approve the content
of our inc
I have recently started a vote on tuscany-dev to approve the content
of our incubator-M2 release for Java SCA. This note is to inform the
IPMC of this vote and to invite any interested members to review the
content.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200611.mbox/%
[EMA
, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to nominate Luciano as a committer on Tuscany.
He has been helping with DAS for several months, recently managing
the release of M2 (which is no mean feat when done through patches).
He has been active on the mailing list and ha
The "important part" here is not to validate the process but the
provenance of the code being contributed. It does not matter whether
the code was developed in an open or closed manner, by one individual
or by many, what we have a responsibility to establish is that the
code can legally be
On Oct 28, 2006, at 12:46 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/28/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2006, at 6:59 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> the status file is worrying: there are two CCLAs pending. please
> confirm that this is either an ov
On Oct 28, 2006, at 6:59 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
the status file is worrying: there are two CCLAs pending. please
confirm that this is either an oversight or that these CCLAs are not
pertinent to this material.
The CCLAs are pertinent and were sent to Jim on 2005-12-28 as
recorded
Passed with binding +1's from rdonkin, geirm, dims
and non-binding +1 from matezw
Thank you everyone.
--
Jeremy
On Oct 15, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release a parent pom and buildtools
jar that are dependencies for a forthcoming M2 release.
The Tuscany PPMC has voted to release a parent pom and buildtools jar
that are dependencies for a forthcoming M2 release. These would be
made available through the m2-incubating-repository to allow end
users to build source distributions of that release. In accordance
with Incubator release
On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:28 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 10/12/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Other than wait for Robert's scanning tool? :-)
no need to wait: get the source (http://code.google.com/p/arat/) and
run the RAT against the source distribution (i'll improved bi
On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we
ought to focus on actual requirements, such as
On Oct 12, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the
Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to
focus on
actual requirements, such as:
Licensing
Notification
Signing
I would like to use this as part of the run-up for Tuscany's next
release. Did you check this in somewhere and if so where? If not, can
I have a copy I can run locally?
Thanks
--
Jeremy
On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:31 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
i have a basic tool that i've been running aga
On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
I would suggest it go into:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/tools/
as it would be applicable for non-incubator projects as well.
Unless there's something special, how about a public tree? A podling
it's own right?
--
Jeremy
On Sep 9, 2006, at 10:12 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
On Sep 9, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for doing this. I think it's great for podlings to get a
leg up.
I'd like to understand wher
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for doing this. I think it's great for podlings to get a leg
up.
I'd like to understand where this POM is documented so that
podlings can use and understand it.
Just a link to the incubator web page that tells podlings
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:48 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 8 Sep 06, at 10:36 PM 8 Sep 06, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 9/8/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This artifact would need to released by the Incubator PMC so that it
can be made freely available via ibiblio. The latest version
As discussed recently I have created a Maven2 POM that is meant to
capture current Incubator policy for podlings. For example, this
defines the location of the Maven repositories where they should
release artifacts to. This allows a podling to inherit from this POM
and avoid the need to pro
On Sep 6, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 9/6/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Our initial idea was to have short (15-min?) talks about as many
podlings as we
> can fit in to the timeslot. Tell us what the project is about,
who is
y
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 1 Sep 06, at 1:03 PM 1 Sep 06, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Any other thoughts on this? Any objection to checking it in to
incubator SVN?
I think it's a good idea because a lot of the common information
can be collected, made consistent
Any other thoughts on this? Any objection to checking it in to
incubator SVN?
Thanks
--
Jeremy
On Aug 30, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The Maven project maintains a POM that can be used as a parent by
other ASF projects
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/pom/trunk/asf/pom.xml
The Maven project maintains a POM that can be used as a parent by
other ASF projects
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/pom/trunk/asf/pom.xml
I think it would help if we had a similar thing for the incubator
that podlings can use - for example, defining the distribution repo
to be the in
On Jul 30, 2006, at 3:15 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html is really
just an outline. lot of work required.
I had an itch to help with this one.
--
Jeremy
-
To unsubscr
On Jul 29, 2006, at 10:03 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
There are (at least) two scenarios where I believe there is
legitimate cause
for concern with the way Maven does things:
* You can declare a dependency on a particular groupId/artifactI
On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
Would probably also be a good idea to fix the tuscany page
itself..It mentions that it is in the incubator, but the page title
and header is Apache Tuscany..
The branding page says that a podling must be referred to as Apache
"Podlin
After the recent discussion on the "New Committers" thread, I'd like
to ask someone to create a private/ppmc list for Tuscany. I opened a
Jira for this a while ago
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-839 and someone who shall
remain nameless volunteered to do it but hasn't quite got around
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> I think the initial decision was that a PPMC was not necessary as the code was
> just going to be imported into the MyFaces project. Therefore, the MyFaces
> PMC
> is responsible for executing the duties that a PPMC would normally do.
>
> Perhaps we need to clarify
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
> In any case, the framework part seems just like what JBI impls like
> ServiceMix are doing and what JBI alternates like SCA (Tuscany) are
> doing. Since James is a mentor of this maybe he can explain the
> relationship (or lack thereof) between Celtixfire and Service
robert burrell donkin wrote:
>> > On 6/7/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >I will try to get a template based on Maven 1.x ready for ApacheCon
>> >
>> > It probably makes far more sense to make that Maven 2.x.
>
> both would be best
>
> a lot of projects are still maven 1. what
On 6/2/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the idea of automation.
What would be even more helpful would be a default Apache project
setup, with a maven release target that builds a release in the right
format.
If the project structure started out with LICENSE, NOTICE, JAR targ
On 6/1/06, Cliff Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes -- it's true that the policy is still only proposed and that the
proposed policy allows for a transition/evaluation period to see the
impact of some of the requirements.
I would not suggest that you remove something from the release just
be
On 5/31/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please check with Cliff that your understanding regarding Rhino distribution
as you explained it to Bill's objection is correct. Not to hold up the
release, since you've documented the license and are in the Incubator, but
just to be sure fo
On 5/25/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We voted on tuscany-dev on a revised version that addresses the issues
Robert raised below and the results can be viewed at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.tuscany.devel/3403
We would like to request approval fr
On 5/30/06, Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just noticed this distribution redistributes (unmodified?)the MPL 1.1
licensed Rhino JavaScript engine. MPL
1.1 is significantly more restrictive than the AL 2. Is this a concern?
MPL1.1 is on Chris's list as a "Class B" license which A
On 5/27/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is STATUS appropriate to be bundled in the release?
I had the same question relating to the Tuscany release. In general I
don't think it should as STATUS reflects the state of the project
rather than the code being distributed and technical
We voted on tuscany-dev on a revised version that addresses the issues
Robert raised below and the results can be viewed at
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.webservices.tuscany.devel/3403
We would like to request approval from the Incubator PMC to release
this new version.
The candidate
On 2/2/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > > allow automated downloads by Maven? I have an issue with that,
> > > since it could allow people to use the code without knowing
> > > that it is in the Incubator, but more to th
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-8?page=all ]
Jeremy Boynes updated INCUBATOR-8:
--
Attachment: tuscany-java-contrib.jar
Contribution of Java implementation by BEA and IBM as covered by CCLA
> Incubate Tuscany SOA proj
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would like to offer development help on the proposed Tuscany SOA project.
Great - welcome aboard.
> From the Tuscany proposal, I would be interested in helping with the
> following technology areas:
>
> * integration with Axis2 policy implementations for security,
>
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The WS-PMC has voted to accept the re-written Tuscany proposal with 11
> +1 votes (and zero -1/+0/-0 votes)
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
Dims
Great, thank you!
I have updated the proposal on the wiki to reflect this result and to
change sponsor from the Incubator
Roy T.Fielding wrote:
>
> No, the proposal is all about SOA. What you are saying is that the
> *actual plan* is about SCA. What I am saying is that the proposal
> needs to match the actual plan, preferably a plan that is actionable,
> rather than a statement of how happy the SOA community may so
Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> Now - can someone give me an idea of how "open" the model is? In other words
> are the specifications behind Tuscany open to being modified? Will they be
> submitted to a standards body and in what timeframe? It would be good to
> know that Apache and in particular the co
Changshin Lee wrote:
> Quick question - Is the project going to be a JBI (JSR 208)
> implementation?
>
The design of the code we are contributing is intended to support
multiple container models. At this time there is an implementation of a
very simple Java container but some experiments have be
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> speaking for myself, we'd be glad to make tuscany part of the WS
> family. If you wish, we can have a vote on the PMC list. just let us
> know.
>
> thx,
> dims
>
> On 11/30/05, Kenneth Tam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Noel,
>>
>>(I worked with Jeremy on the proposa
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> How does this proposal fit with other ESB/SOA projects currently underway at
> the ASF? At first glance, there appears to be overlap, so I am wondering if
> there a plan / opportunity to merge them.
>
We are looking forward to close collaboration with other projects at t
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-8?page=all ]
Jeremy Boynes updated INCUBATOR-8:
--
Attachment: tuscany_cpp.tar.gz
Example of seed code for C++ implementation - actual contribution to be
uploaded on acceptance of proposal accompanied by
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-8?page=all ]
Jeremy Boynes updated INCUBATOR-8:
--
Attachment: Tuscany-apache-proposal.tar.gz
Example of seed code for Java implementation - actual contribution to be
uploaded on acceptance of proposal
s/asf/incubator/tuscany
3.3 Jira
* Tuscany (TUSCANY)
4. Identify the initial set of committers:
* Jeremy Boynes
* Frank Budinsky
* Jean-Sebastien Delfino
* Mike Edwards
* Padmapriya Illindala
* Jim Marino
* Geir Magnusson Jr.
* Eddie O'Neil
* Radu Preot
robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> i've done some digging around and think that the software grant applies to a
> specific, concrete instance of the source. this will typically be examplared
> by a tarballed source artifact checked into subversion. am i right and is
> the incubator the right place t
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Brian McCallister wrote:
On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
So what happens now? :-)
Logistical details that come to mind are:
* adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add
takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in
So what happens now? :-)
Logistical details that come to mind are:
* adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add
takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in progess?
* moving the SVN root under the DB project and granting Derby committers
karma to the appropriate tree
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Has the Derby project engaged suitable DB PMC members as committers and PPMC
members, to enhance oversight and increase cross-pollination ?? (Sorry if
this has been mentioned before, but I have not followed the details of
Derby.)
DB PMC members have been with Derby
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
It's not so much "dissonance" as an exception. In an incubating
project, the developers are usually new to the ASF, and skipped the
meritocracy step by virtue of association with the project before it
entered Apache ("here's the list of committers"). Therefore it's
reas
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
