ws-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Mercury Proposal
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:56:07 GMT
Hash: SHA1


*** My 2 cents, YMMV. This is not an intention to start a flame fest. It's a personal opinion

FWIW, I am quite tired and fed up of folks who don't actually do the work push things around
and nothing ever happens
after a so called decision is made. Case in point, remember the discussion on transports in

So, if this is what Amila wants to do, am ok. If someone wants to join in, more the merrier
and they can actually decide
what to do, when and how. I'd personally like to get this going and get out of the way of
the person(s) executing.

So, if the incubator folks are ok and we are legally covered. My personal view is to just
get it going and get out of
the way.


Paul Fremantle wrote:
| Glen. I didn't think there was any consensus from the previous
| discussion (does the word dissensus exist?) :)
| I am actually pretty happy to do either, I think each approach has +s and -s.
| On the side of starting from the Mercury codebase, Amila has got it to
| a point where it satisfies the 1.0 spec, including Replay.
| On the other hand, Mercury doesn't yet implement 1.1 or
| MakeConnection, and also it doesn't support transactions yet, so there
| are some fairly large aspects still to be coded. And starting afresh
| might well get more involvement from the wider community which I think
| has been the main pushback on this proposal so far.
| I guess one open question is - who is willing to put in the effort to
| work on this?! If it's just Amila, then starting afresh won't be much
| benefit, because he will be happier to keep working from the code he
| has already built. If there is a wider set of people willing to put in
| effort, then starting afresh might have significant benefits.
| Paul
| On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Glen Daniels <> wrote:
|> Hi Paul:
|> Paul Fremantle wrote:
|>> I have posted a proposal here:
|>> Please edit, improve, or discuss.... I put this in the wiki so that it
|>> could be modified.
|> Hm... I thought where we'd ended up discussion-wise was that we would get
|> the Mercury code granted to Apache so that it could be examined / learned
|> from / experimented with, but that we would aim to create a "third way" as
|> the next step for both projects.
|> In other words, the actual work that happens to make the new "unified" RM
|> implementation (whatever it ends up being called) would start with a clean
|> slate and take whatever it can from both Sandesha and Mercury, with the goal
|> of making sure that all the active developers are involved and empowered.
|>  Did I understand that right?
|> Your proposal makes it sound rather like we're going to just start from the
|> existing Mercury code and go from there.
|> --Glen
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message