| Re: [bpel-dev] Offer of donation of WS-BPEL implementation to assist project development |
Hi James. One thought that I'd like to explore: assuming we can make progress on the latter approach you mention (i.e., the friendly licence for the Eclipse project to use), have you thought about packaging of the final plugin or the development repository itself and how jBPM-BPEL might work there? Obviously as part of our donation effort the jBPM-BPEL product would be provided in source code and binary format. The source code would be maintained on our site, but that doesn't preclude anyone from contributing to its development, as I outlined in my original email. However, although the BPEL project could get the binary manually from the same location, it may make more sense for the project to have a copy of said binary within its CVS repository. I'm not sure how that works with other Eclipse projects (maybe some third-party lib directory?) At least that way whenever anyone checks out the project, either to use it or develop it, they'll get everything they need in a single click.
What do you (and others) think? If there's interest to explore this avenue, we could look at how JBoss (and the jBPM development process) could feed directly into the Eclipse project whenever a new update occurs (either directly, or by emailing/notifying the forum/developers).
Mark.
James Moody wrote:
>
> Hi again Mark,
>
> Yes, I've contacted an Eclipse IP person, I think they'll probably have some questions, which I will relay to you if I can't answer them.
>
> Re-reading your donation proposal, I just wanted to clarify one aspect. Did you envision this jBPM-BPEL code "living" on Eclipse.org? I.e. developed henceforth in our CVS repository? Or simply available under a friendly license to aid in the development of our runtime framework and reference glue code? If the former, that might be problematic for a couple of reasons, namely that owning a runtime is explicitly outside the scope of our project goals, as well as potential license issues (there may be issues with having non-EPL code living on Eclipse.org but again I'm not a lawyer). If the latter, fantastic - this is what I had asked the IP guy about and hope to have more information soon.
>
> james
>
>
> bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/09/2006 08:32:19 AM:
>
> > James, did you ask the "Eclipse IP person/people to take a look"?
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> >
> > James Moody wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Mark,
> > >
> > > This looks very interesting! From the jBPM-BPEL roadmap that you
> > > outline below, it looks like your dates will line up nicely with those
> > > of this project (allowing of course for whatever changes are necessary
> > > when WS-BPEL 2.0 is completed). I believe this move will certainly
> > > benefit the community.
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment on the license-related issues,
> > > except to say that we should get the Eclipse IP person/people to take
> > > a look and confim that it makes them happy.
> > >
> > > Bruno: as you've taken a look at the issue of a runtime framework, I'd
> > > appreciate it if you could add any comments here.
> > >
> > > Let's continue the discussion here of how to proceed on the design of
> > > this framework and how to carve up the work among those involved.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > james
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bpel-dev mailing list
> bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev