Mail Archive Home | architecture List | April 2006 Index
| <-- Date Index --> | <-- Thread Index --> |
HiSo let me summarize the current status and the suggestion I would have to find synergies between the JBI.
eXo Platform has grown from a portal framework to an Application Platform Suite (APS) including Enterprise Portal Solution (EPS) and Enterprise Content Management (ECM) one. In each case implementing the default JCR standards (JSR 168, 170), each time with quite some success.
In both cases we mainly focus on the integration of all those products to build a comprehensive stack but also allowing them to run independently. We mainly focus on providing portlet monitoring tools thanks to a native integration of the - in JVM - eXo service/ component stack.
We are also adding some layers of the APS by integration with other OW projects like SpagoBI (for portal monitoring and then BAM) and XWiki. Tools like Lomboz are also now natively supporting eXo portlets deployment which strengthen the ObjectWeb ecosystem.
In january 2006, eXo decided to complete that stack by providing a JBI container based on our eXo in JVM component stack to dynamically monitor (and manage) JBI components in our JMX portlet, to leverage the existing services like caching or security one and to finally use the advanced building mechanism we built on top of Maven2.
Therefore, we purchased the Brazilian company FossilEC which was, at that time, the only contributor - in term of code - to PETALS project. Our goal was to accelerate the implementation of a JBI container in ObjectWeb to avoid to see other OW projects and members forced to use JBI implementations like ServiceMix. We also convinced some partners to at least test their JBI components on our implementation too.
Last Thursday, we have released our first JBI implementation (wrongly marketed as an ESB in the announcement...sorry for that) which created some FUD and noise here and there and mainly in the college mailing list. It is not the first time there exist 2 projects with some overlaps in OW, it is the case with Bonita and Shark as well as Byline and eXo that were even accepted at the same time!
Now while the code contributed to PETALS were mainly FossilEC one, the other contributor just got resources to accelerate its contribution and tries to fill the missing holes that we would also need.
So here is my suggestion to try to find new synergies:- eXo backport its enhancements to PETALS code which means that the exo-platform in JVM service container is used as the basis for the new JBI works (note that the code of the core platform of eXo is licensed as LGP which would not break the current licensing of petals). - eXo replaces FossilEC as co lead of PETALS with Rafael Marins as project admin - eXo will provide its APS-EAI layer based on PETALS and code like monitoring/managing portlets will remain in eXo SVN - eXo continues to push OW members/projects to use in priority or at least test on the OW JBI container
We would like this issue to be resolved quickly as I have not asked my team to stop the developments during what we can call a "negotiation" :), hence the more we wait the more the merge will be complex.
Hope you will all find that proposal reasonable Cheers Benjamin Mestrallet On Apr 10, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Francois Letellier wrote:
Dear all,questions have been raised lately in the community following a recent announcement made by eXo Platform about "eXoESB" (http:// www.objectweb.org/phorum/read.php?f=29&i=10662&t=10662). So that we can address these concerns in a timely and efficient manner, you'll find below a recommendation (approved by our chairman) for conducting an open discussion and making the appropriate decisions.The discussion will be conducted publicly, on two mailing lists: architecture@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and esb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxWe'll allow a period of one week for discussion and, as far as possible, consensus building. During the discussion, parties are invited to present their concerns and propositions for moving forward, in line with ObjectWeb's purposes and for the best interest of all. The College and the members of ESBi are warmly encouraged to present a position and recommendation.After the discussion period, the executive committee will compile the arguments exchanged on the mailing lists and present the case to the chairman of the board for decision on the next steps.Restricted mailing lists (eg: board, college, etc) may be used, but the content of the messages exchanged on these mailing lists will not be taken into account unless properly summarized and posted on the architecture and/or esb ML.We kindly ask all participants in discussions to abide by basic courtesy rules (cf the "netiquette") so that the discussion can happen in a fruitfull manner. The public mailing lists we'll use count over 1050 subscribers -- please make sure not to flood them inconsiderately.To enter the discussion, please answer this message. Thanks François LETELLIER INRIA Rhône-Alpes - ObjectWeb Consortium Executive Committeeemail: francois.letellier at objectweb.org - cell: +33 (0)6 84 64 00 24 - Skype: francois.letellier - Gizmo: francois_letellierblog: http://os3g.blogspot.com/ ObjectWeb: http://www.objectweb.org
| <-- Date Index --> | <-- Thread Index --> |
Powered by MHonArc.
Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.