Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"
Thanks for the feed back,
 
No decision has been made regarding PXE.  ActiveBPEL has been chosen for POC because we need to choose something and PXE did not come to our attention early enough to be considered.  A brief look indicated some challenges but I don't have the details.
 
As to ServiceBus, you make a compelling case.  My only comment here is that ALF should only require what it requires.  It seem reasonable at this point that ALF can remain BPEL engine agnostic and I think it is better for us to maintain that approach so long as it is viable.  While ServiceBus provides  BPEL functionality it packages a number of other technologies.  If ALF requires ServiceBus, particularly at an early stage,  it will be much harder for ALF to remain BPEL engine agnostic because of the additional assumptions that will be created none of which are core to ALF.
 
That said, if there is sufficient momentum within eclipse around an SOA technology suite that includes PXE then it is inevitable that some configuration of ALF will work with it.
 
Tim
 
 

From: alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Joel
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:45 AM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"

 
Another addition to Rupert's comments -  ServiceMix is actively engaged with the Eclipse SOA project (STP), which is targeting JBI as it's initial deployment platform. Leveraging the work of STP within ALF will be much easier if we commit to a common infrastructure.
 
Perhaps for the POC it's a bit late to change tack, but for the subsequent deliverables we should seriously consider aligning our deployment target with STP's.
 
Cheers,
Joel Hawkins
-----Original Message-----
From: alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rupert.thurner@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:35 PM
To: alf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"

thank you for your comments. i did not suggest pxe, but servicebus, which includes pxe. servicebus develops rather quick, and at that time when you made your decision, pxe was not yet included. maybe i should also say why i think servicemix would be a good choice:
 
technical:
 * contrary to activebpel already supports both ws-bpel 2.0 and bpel4ws1.1
 * additionally rule based routing
 * additionally scripting (a very important interfacing issue)
 * java business integrations allowing different vendors to "plug and play"
 * integrated in application server or standalone mode
 
community:
 * by far a larger developer community and community support than activebpel
 
commercial background:
* integrated in geronimo (ibm aquired geronimo development company)
 * can be integrated in jboss
 * ibm supports eclipse actively and it can be expected it goes a similar
    direction with geronimo.
 
summary:
 * further technological and stability leadership of servicemix can therefore be expected
 * imo not choosing servicebus means implementing/integrating similar technologies
   to activebpel which needs resources and time. even for a poc.
 
could you detail what servicebus or the included pxe is missing compared to activebpel? or somehow publish your results ... i cannot remember you mentioned your choice and the reasons on the mailing list.
 
kind regards,
 
rupert thurner

From: alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Buss
Sent: Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2005 22:27
To: ALF Developer Mailing List
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"

Thank you for posting this analysis.  It is very useful.  I agree with your evaluation.
 
Just to be clear, Agila was formerly our preferred choice before we had investigated it fully.  However it quickly became clear that is incomplete is some important ways.  It may be our primary choice in the futured depending how it develops.  Currently the BPEL part (Twister) is being merged with Agila to become a full apache project so it may be a while before it settle in and work in the BPEL part results.  We looked at a number of Open Source engines and only ActiveBPEL seemed to be mature enough for our immediate needs.  Consequently, ActiveBPEL was chosen as the target for the POC.  I believe this was discussed on the newsgroup or in the mail list but I apologies if that was not made clear in an obvious way.
 
PXE is on the list as an example implementation in the future. We have started to look at it internally but it will not be the target for the ALF POC.  I recommend staying with ActiveBPEL for ALF related work for the time being.
 
That all said, it is a goal of ALF to be BPEL engine agnostic as far as is practical.  This is not the focus of the POC and thus any current ALF work but it will be useful, going forward,  to understand the various engines out there.
 
Tim Buss


From: alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Joel
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:50 PM
To: 'ALF Developer Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"

+1
-----Original Message-----
From: alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:alf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rupert.thurner@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:19 PM
To: alf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [alf-dev] No Reasons for Agila "Primary Choice"

hi robert,
 
maybe you want to look into http://servicemix.org/. it should be much closer to what you want to do. it uses opensource pxe.
 
best regards,
 
rupert thurner
 




The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.




**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Back to the top