From phil.hunt at oracle.com Mon Mar 10 15:10:46 2008 From: phil.hunt at oracle.com (Phil Hunt) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:10:46 -0700 Subject: [Igf-dev] Normal call cancelled Message-ID: <3138B1A1-4507-438C-9161-233C71DEB8E1@Oracle.com> Due to the plenary meeting in Santa Clara, the IGF-Dev call this week is cancelled. We will be doing an update at 1PM tomorrow at the plenary. If anyone would like to participate by phone, please let me know. Cheers, Phil Hunt Oracle From phil.hunt at oracle.com Wed Mar 19 14:32:20 2008 From: phil.hunt at oracle.com (Phil Hunt) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:32:20 -0700 Subject: [Igf-dev] carml schema 09 Message-ID: I have posted revisions to the carml schema (rev 09): igf-carml-09.xsd: http://idgov.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/idgov/IGF_AttrSvcs/trunk/org.openliberty.igf.attributeServices/schemas/igf-carml-09.xsd?view=log carml example for 09: http://idgov.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/idgov/IGF_AttrSvcs/trunk/org.openliberty.igf.attributeServices/doc/igf/carml-example-09.xml?view=log The major changes are: * Optionality moved to reference objects used in Interactions. e.g. the use of an attribute is now optional (or not) in the context of a transaction or interaction. * Schema is now called DataDefs * External schema can be referenced inside of the data defs section - promoting the use of standardized or industry vertical data schema. * Each operation now has its own Interaction Element - this allowed for tighter definition as to what types of attributes, predicates, roles, filters are allowed with each operation. * Authenticate is now known as Find (authenticate is a higher level concept). * Compare has been added as a new operation type. * Filters now support qualifiers like begins with, ends with, equals, contains, is not equal etc. Multiple filters & roles can be combined with a matching condition of "any" or "all" to allow for implied "or"/"and" relationships between filters/roles. Note: this is not the final rev 09. Let me know if you want changes. Once we are comfortable, I'll close the feature request (1912897) and will give to Prateek for submission back to TEG for consideration. Phil Hunt Oracle From phil.hunt at oracle.com Thu Mar 20 13:53:16 2008 From: phil.hunt at oracle.com (Phil Hunt) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:53:16 -0700 Subject: [Igf-dev] Fwd: Naming of WSF and IGF References: Message-ID: Asa, I have copied both lists since this discussion thread applies to both projects. I think we should avoid the use of Liberty or Open Liberty, or Open. Since the parent organization is OpenLiberty, reusing the name Liberty, OpenLiberty, or even Open in the "product" or "project" name causes repitition. E.g. OpenLiberty OpenWSF seems a little redundant. Looking at the WSF stuff you are building, it is a lot bigger than I first thought. I thought it was just the client! Leaving the development language issue aside, it almost looks like you are building a "WSF Toolkit" and re-packing it into a couple of open source products (e.g. WSF Client, WSF Server). I'd almost go for WSF-J Toolkit (for people re-using the code), WSF-J Client and WSF-J Server for customers deploying as final products. That still seems a little dry. Going back to Chuck Mortimore's comment about customers buy houses and not plumbing, I'd look for a higher level name. I'm not sure if this is any better, but how about Trust Fed. So the full name would be something like: openLiberty TrustFed-J ToolKit openLiberty TrustFed-J AppKit openLIberty TrustFed-J ProviderKit That said, now that I have typed it out, "TrustFed" seems a little dry. I'd still like to see something a little open source like. Project Panda or something goofy like that. ;-) Phil Hunt Oracle Begin forwarded message: > From: Asa Hardcastle > Date: March 20, 2008 12:51:59 PM PDT (CA) > To: Phil Hunt > Cc: PRATEEK MISHRA > Subject: Re: Naming of WSF and IGF > > Good idea Phil. Here is a start from me: > > An open source ID-WSF 2.0 implementation. > > Objectives: > * a complete XML tooling of the entire ID-WSF 2.0 specifications > including ID-SIS > * a client library that enables any application to easily take part > in an existing ID-WSF environment > * a basic ID-WSF WSP along with libraries that are the basis for > creating new ID-WSF services (Conor's work, Sampo's work) > * a pattern that enables the establishment of an ID-SIS based or ID- > WSF based service clients > * providing multiple software language versions of the above (to > date we have java WSP, java WSC client lib, C based WSP and WSC) > * sample service and service consumer applications > * a running and available ID-WSF environment for the purposes of > learning and testing > > That said, I'd like to bring the naming discussion back onto the wsf > list. > > Could the two of you join the id-wsf list temporarily so we can do > this together? > > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > > Maybe the use of "Liberty" could work: > > LibertyIGF > LibertyWSF > > LFrameIGF/J > LFrameWSF/J > > > talk soon, > > asa > > -- > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: > >> I've been thinking about this naming business. Before we name >> something, it would be nice to describe what are the "products" we >> are building in open source. >> >> For example, my understanding is that you are building the >> libraries a RP can use to participate in an ID-WSF system >> correct? Or better, how would you describe it. >> >> For my part, in order to demonstrate the use of IGF, I actually >> have to create, and then use declarations across a set of >> protocols. So I'm building an attribute services API kinda like >> JNDI or JDBC that allows the developers to access data. However >> because of the benefits of pre-declaration, we can leave >> configuration out of the application code. So probably the key cool >> benefit of the new API is abstraction. So if I were to describe >> the IGF Attr Svc API as a product I would say it: >> * An API using layered architecture that allowing applications to >> access data via multiple protocols (LDAP, SAML, ID-WSF, WS-Fed, >> etc) without having to set special parameters for those protocol >> implementations at compile time. Individual protocols are >> configured exclusively at deployment time. >> * Allows use of standardized and industry vertical schemas >> * Declarative API allows service providers to understand data and >> transaction requirements of an application -- a very generic client >> WSDL if you like. >> * Declarative API allows for easier Privacy Impact Assessments. >> >> We could also run through some other thought exercises...but >> starting with the qualities of our products might be a good place. >> >> Phil Hunt >> Oracle >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080320/fd359a30/attachment-0001.html From asa.openliberty at zenn.net Thu Mar 20 17:06:12 2008 From: asa.openliberty at zenn.net (Asa Hardcastle) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:06:12 -0400 Subject: [Igf-dev] [wsf-dev] Fwd: Naming of WSF and IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> So to give others some context: OpenLiberty/J turns out to be a little short sighted. Since OpenLiberty has numerous projects, to which we are now adding regularly, we need to find a name that does not confuse this point. So we are back in the naming game. It may or may not be useful for us to have a convention across all projects. There is certainly something to be said for continuity. So, any ideas? Phil has made it clear that he does not like the idea of using "open" or "liberty" in the names, and has built an argument for this in the email I am responding too. asa -- Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 On Mar 20, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: > Asa, > > I have copied both lists since this discussion thread applies to > both projects. > > I think we should avoid the use of Liberty or Open Liberty, or > Open. Since the parent organization is OpenLiberty, reusing the > name Liberty, OpenLiberty, or even Open in the "product" or > "project" name causes repitition. E.g. OpenLiberty OpenWSF seems a > little redundant. > > Looking at the WSF stuff you are building, it is a lot bigger than I > first thought. I thought it was just the client! > > Leaving the development language issue aside, it almost looks like > you are building a "WSF Toolkit" and re-packing it into a couple of > open source products (e.g. WSF Client, WSF Server). > > I'd almost go for WSF-J Toolkit (for people re-using the code), WSF- > J Client and WSF-J Server for customers deploying as final products. > > That still seems a little dry. Going back to Chuck Mortimore's > comment about customers buy houses and not plumbing, I'd look for a > higher level name. I'm not sure if this is any better, but how about > Trust Fed. So the full name would be something like: > openLiberty TrustFed-J ToolKit > openLiberty TrustFed-J AppKit > openLIberty TrustFed-J ProviderKit > > That said, now that I have typed it out, "TrustFed" seems a little > dry. I'd still like to see something a little open source like. > Project Panda or something goofy like that. ;-) > > Phil Hunt > Oracle > > > Begin forwarded message: >> From: Asa Hardcastle >> Date: March 20, 2008 12:51:59 PM PDT (CA) >> To: Phil Hunt >> Cc: PRATEEK MISHRA >> Subject: Re: Naming of WSF and IGF >> >> Good idea Phil. Here is a start from me: >> >> An open source ID-WSF 2.0 implementation. >> >> Objectives: >> * a complete XML tooling of the entire ID-WSF 2.0 specifications >> including ID-SIS >> * a client library that enables any application to easily take >> part in an existing ID-WSF environment >> * a basic ID-WSF WSP along with libraries that are the basis for >> creating new ID-WSF services (Conor's work, Sampo's work) >> * a pattern that enables the establishment of an ID-SIS based or >> ID-WSF based service clients >> * providing multiple software language versions of the above (to >> date we have java WSP, java WSC client lib, C based WSP and WSC) >> * sample service and service consumer applications >> * a running and available ID-WSF environment for the purposes of >> learning and testing >> >> That said, I'd like to bring the naming discussion back onto the >> wsf list. >> >> Could the two of you join the id-wsf list temporarily so we can do >> this together? >> >> http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org >> >> Maybe the use of "Liberty" could work: >> >> LibertyIGF >> LibertyWSF >> >> LFrameIGF/J >> LFrameWSF/J >> >> >> talk soon, >> >> asa >> >> -- >> Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib >> Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 >> >> On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: >> >>> I've been thinking about this naming business. Before we name >>> something, it would be nice to describe what are the "products" we >>> are building in open source. >>> >>> For example, my understanding is that you are building the >>> libraries a RP can use to participate in an ID-WSF system >>> correct? Or better, how would you describe it. >>> >>> For my part, in order to demonstrate the use of IGF, I actually >>> have to create, and then use declarations across a set of >>> protocols. So I'm building an attribute services API kinda like >>> JNDI or JDBC that allows the developers to access data. However >>> because of the benefits of pre-declaration, we can leave >>> configuration out of the application code. So probably the key >>> cool benefit of the new API is abstraction. So if I were to >>> describe the IGF Attr Svc API as a product I would say it: >>> * An API using layered architecture that allowing applications to >>> access data via multiple protocols (LDAP, SAML, ID-WSF, WS-Fed, >>> etc) without having to set special parameters for those protocol >>> implementations at compile time. Individual protocols are >>> configured exclusively at deployment time. >>> * Allows use of standardized and industry vertical schemas >>> * Declarative API allows service providers to understand data and >>> transaction requirements of an application -- a very generic >>> client WSDL if you like. >>> * Declarative API allows for easier Privacy Impact Assessments. >>> >>> We could also run through some other thought exercises...but >>> starting with the qualities of our products might be a good place. >>> >>> Phil Hunt >>> Oracle >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wsf-dev mailing list > Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080320/37d9b38a/attachment.html From brett at projectliberty.org Sat Mar 22 16:27:53 2008 From: brett at projectliberty.org (Brett McDowell) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:27:53 -0400 Subject: [Igf-dev] [wsf-dev] Fwd: Naming of WSF and IGF In-Reply-To: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> References: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> Message-ID: If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit -- then how about.. option A: OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the heart of WSF is the concept of "my services") OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just keep the options on the table until we get a decision): OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe) OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit OpenLiberty Panda AppKit OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit option E ?? But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision anyway? I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this project. And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we need to add Phil and Prateek to that list. So maybe only Phil, Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision? Gentlemen, are we at that point yet? Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | vCard| Calendar On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Asa Hardcastle wrote: > So to give others some context: OpenLiberty/J turns out to be a little > short sighted. Since OpenLiberty has numerous projects, to which we are > now adding regularly, we need to find a name that does not confuse this > point. So we are back in the naming game. > > It may or may not be useful for us to have a convention across all > projects. There is certainly something to be said for continuity. So, any > ideas? > > Phil has made it clear that he does not like the idea of using "open" or > "liberty" in the names, and has built an argument for this in the email I am > responding too. > > asa > > > > -- > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > > > On Mar 20, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Phil Hunt wrote: > > Asa, > I have copied both lists since this discussion thread applies to both > projects. > > I think we should avoid the use of Liberty or Open Liberty, or Open. > Since the parent organization is OpenLiberty, reusing the name Liberty, > OpenLiberty, or even Open in the "product" or "project" name causes > repitition. E.g. OpenLiberty OpenWSF seems a little redundant. > > Looking at the WSF stuff you are building, it is a lot bigger than I first > thought. I thought it was just the client! > > Leaving the development language issue aside, it almost looks like you are > building a "WSF Toolkit" and re-packing it into a couple of open source > products (e.g. WSF Client, WSF Server). > > I'd almost go for WSF-J Toolkit (for people re-using the code), WSF-J > Client and WSF-J Server for customers deploying as final products. > > That still seems a little dry. Going back to Chuck Mortimore's comment > about customers buy houses and not plumbing, I'd look for a higher level > name. I'm not sure if this is any better, but how about Trust Fed. So the > full name would be something like: > openLiberty TrustFed-J ToolKit > openLiberty TrustFed-J AppKit > openLIberty TrustFed-J ProviderKit > > That said, now that I have typed it out, "TrustFed" seems a little dry. > I'd still like to see something a little open source like. Project Panda or > something goofy like that. ;-) > > Phil Hunt > Oracle > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Asa Hardcastle > *Date: *March 20, 2008 12:51:59 PM PDT (CA) > *To: *Phil Hunt > *Cc: *PRATEEK MISHRA > *Subject: **Re: Naming of WSF and IGF* > > Good idea Phil. Here is a start from me: > > An open source ID-WSF 2.0 implementation. > > Objectives: > * a complete XML tooling of the entire ID-WSF 2.0 specifications including > ID-SIS > * a client library that enables any application to easily take part in an > existing ID-WSF environment > * a basic ID-WSF WSP along with libraries that are the basis for creating > new ID-WSF services (Conor's work, Sampo's work) > * a pattern that enables the establishment of an ID-SIS based or ID-WSF > based service clients > * providing multiple software language versions of the above (to date we > have java WSP, java WSC client lib, C based WSP and WSC) > * sample service and service consumer applications > * a running and available ID-WSF environment for the purposes of learning > and testing > > That said, I'd like to bring the naming discussion back onto the wsf list. > > Could the two of you join the id-wsf list temporarily so we can do this > together? > > > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > > Maybe the use of "Liberty" could work: > > LibertyIGF > LibertyWSF > > LFrameIGF/J > LFrameWSF/J > > > talk soon, > > asa > > -- > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Phil Hunt wrote: > > I've been thinking about this naming business. Before we name something, > it would be nice to describe what are the "products" we are building in open > source. > > > For example, my understanding is that you are building the libraries a RP > can use to participate in an ID-WSF system correct? Or better, how would > you describe it. > > > For my part, in order to demonstrate the use of IGF, I actually have to > create, and then use declarations across a set of protocols. So I'm > building an attribute services API kinda like JNDI or JDBC that allows the > developers to access data. However because of the benefits of > pre-declaration, we can leave configuration out of the application code. So > probably the key cool benefit of the new API is abstraction. So if I were > to describe the IGF Attr Svc API as a product I would say it: > > * An API using layered architecture that allowing applications to access > data via multiple protocols (LDAP, SAML, ID-WSF, WS-Fed, etc) without having > to set special parameters for those protocol implementations at compile > time. Individual protocols are configured exclusively at deployment time. > > * Allows use of standardized and industry vertical schemas > > * Declarative API allows service providers to understand data and > transaction requirements of an application -- a very generic client WSDL if > you like. > > * Declarative API allows for easier Privacy Impact Assessments. > > > We could also run through some other thought exercises...but starting with > the qualities of our products might be a good place. > > > Phil Hunt > > Oracle > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wsf-dev mailing list > Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Igf-dev mailing list > Igf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080322/1be29b71/attachment-0001.html From asa.openliberty at zenn.net Sat Mar 22 19:13:31 2008 From: asa.openliberty at zenn.net (Asa Hardcastle) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:13:31 -0400 Subject: [Igf-dev] Governance & Naming In-Reply-To: References: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> Message-ID: governance: I think we need to get the CLAs signed as Brett has suggested. Any guidelines on project naming should be decided by this smaller governance group. My suggestion is that we do this first, and then go about naming our own projects. This smaller group should decide on things like whether or not we want to have a convention that ties the projects together e.g. "All projects begin with BeerAndWings, sub projects are denoted with a suffix indicating their language, /J /C" as for project naming in general: On Naming an open source project: http://www.advogato.org/article/67.html Here is a list of apache top level projects, many are headers for lots of other projects (down below the list I make my point): HTTP Server ActiveMQ Ant APR Beehive Cayenne Cocoon Commons Continuum DB Directory Excalibur Felix Forrest Geronimo Gump Hadoop Harmony HiveMind HttpComponents iBATIS Incubator Jackrabbit Jakarta James Labs Lenya Logging Lucene Maven Mina MyFaces ODE OFBiz OpenEJB OpenJPA Perl POI Portals Roller Santuario ServiceMix Shale SpamAssassin STDCXX Struts Synapse Tapestry TCL Tiles Tomcat Turbine Velocity Wicket Web Services Xalan Xerces XML XMLBeans XML Graphics Hmm.... seems all over the road in terms of naming conventions, yet, I know of, use, and refer to many of these projects all the time. I'd like to note also that "HTTP Server" is actually the apache web server, as I am sure you all know. So this supports Phil's point about not calling the ID-WSF 2 libraries "OpenLiberty." Obviously at the highest level (Apache foundation's list of projects) they decided it should not be referred to as apache, even though it is apache everywhere else in the world... there's a lot in a name. more later when I have had some time to think, asa -- Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 On Mar 22, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett McDowell wrote: > If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do > actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit -- > then how about.. > > option A: > OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit > OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit > OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit > > option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the > heart of WSF is the concept of "my services") > OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit > OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit > OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit > > option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just > keep the options on the table until we get a decision): > OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit > OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit > OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit > > option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe) > OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit > OpenLiberty Panda AppKit > OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit > > option E ?? > > But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision > anyway? I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George > Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official > independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this > project. And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we > need to add Phil and Prateek to that list. So maybe only Phil, > Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision? > Gentlemen, are we at that point yet? > > Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | vCard | Calendar > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080322/e0bebafe/attachment.html From prateek.mishra at oracle.com Tue Mar 25 10:13:01 2008 From: prateek.mishra at oracle.com (Prateek Mishra) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:13:01 -0400 Subject: [Igf-dev] Governance & Naming In-Reply-To: References: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> Message-ID: <47E9329D.7010808@oracle.com> Sounds like a plan, I think Phil and I have CLAs signed for the IGF work at least I liked the article - unfortunately, I do think naming is a reasonable big deal - we are hoping that these projects are long-lived and some kind of compact handle is really, really good thing. I am worried about the proliferation of too many open's - OpenLiberty Panda or OpenLiberty XXX sounds about right to me. Anywayz, as you suggest, we should discuss this as a group of contributors and agree on some basic guidelines... - prateek > governance: > > I think we need to get the CLAs signed as Brett has suggested. > Any *guidelines* on project naming should be decided by this smaller > governance group. My suggestion is that we do this first, and then go > about naming our own projects. This smaller group should decide on > things like whether or not we want to have a convention that ties the > projects together e.g. "All projects begin with BeerAndWings, sub > projects are denoted with a suffix indicating their language, /J /C" > > > as for project naming in general: > > > On Naming an open source project: > http://www.advogato.org/article/67.html > > Here is a list of apache top level projects, many are headers for lots > of other projects (down below the list I make my point): > > # HTTP Server > # ActiveMQ > # Ant > # APR > # Beehive > # Cayenne > # Cocoon > # Commons > # Continuum > # DB > # Directory > # Excalibur > # Felix > # Forrest > # Geronimo > # Gump > # Hadoop > # Harmony > # HiveMind > # HttpComponents > # iBATIS > # Incubator > # Jackrabbit > # Jakarta > # James > # Labs > # Lenya > # Logging > # Lucene > # Maven > # Mina > # MyFaces > # ODE > # OFBiz > # OpenEJB > # OpenJPA > # Perl > # POI > # Portals > # Roller > # Santuario > # ServiceMix > # Shale > # SpamAssassin > # STDCXX > # Struts > # Synapse > # Tapestry > # TCL > # Tiles > # Tomcat > # Turbine > # Velocity > # Wicket > # Web Services > # Xalan > # Xerces > # XML > # XMLBeans > # XML Graphics > > > Hmm.... seems all over the road in terms of naming conventions, yet, I > know of, use, and refer to many of these projects all the time. I'd > like to note also that "HTTP Server" is actually the apache web > server, as I am sure you all know. So this supports Phil's point > about not calling the ID-WSF 2 libraries "OpenLiberty." Obviously at > the highest level (Apache foundation's list of projects) they decided > it should not be referred to as apache, even though it is apache > everywhere else in the world... there's a lot in a name. > > more later when I have had some time to think, > > asa > > > > > > > -- > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett McDowell wrote: > >> If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do >> actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit -- >> then how about.. >> >> option A: >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit >> OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit >> >> option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the >> heart of WSF is the concept of "my services") >> OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit >> OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit >> OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit >> >> option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just >> keep the options on the table until we get a decision): >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit >> >> option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe) >> OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit >> OpenLiberty Panda AppKit >> OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit >> >> option E ?? >> >> But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision >> anyway? I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George >> Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official >> independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this >> project. And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we >> need to add Phil and Prateek to that list. So maybe only Phil, >> Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision? >> Gentlemen, are we at that point yet? >> >> Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | >> vCard | Calendar >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Igf-dev mailing list > Igf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > From brett at projectliberty.org Tue Mar 25 10:21:50 2008 From: brett at projectliberty.org (Brett McDowell) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:21:50 -0400 Subject: [Igf-dev] Governance & Naming In-Reply-To: <47E9329D.7010808@oracle.com> References: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> <47E9329D.7010808@oracle.com> Message-ID: Yes you and Phil are full OpenLiberty.org contributors based on the CLA Oracle signed. Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | vCard| Calendar On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Prateek Mishra wrote: > Sounds like a plan, I think Phil and I have CLAs signed for the IGF work > at least > > I liked the article - unfortunately, I do think naming is a reasonable > big deal - we are hoping that these projects are long-lived and some > kind of compact handle is really, really good thing. I am worried about > the proliferation of too many open's - OpenLiberty Panda or OpenLiberty > XXX sounds about right to me. > > Anywayz, as you suggest, we should discuss this as a group of > contributors and agree on some basic guidelines... > > - prateek > > governance: > > > > I think we need to get the CLAs signed as Brett has suggested. > > Any *guidelines* on project naming should be decided by this smaller > > governance group. My suggestion is that we do this first, and then go > > about naming our own projects. This smaller group should decide on > > things like whether or not we want to have a convention that ties the > > projects together e.g. "All projects begin with BeerAndWings, sub > > projects are denoted with a suffix indicating their language, /J /C" > > > > > > as for project naming in general: > > > > > > On Naming an open source project: > > http://www.advogato.org/article/67.html > > > > Here is a list of apache top level projects, many are headers for lots > > of other projects (down below the list I make my point): > > > > # HTTP Server > > # ActiveMQ > > # Ant > > # APR > > # Beehive > > # Cayenne > > # Cocoon > > # Commons > > # Continuum > > # DB > > # Directory > > # Excalibur > > # Felix > > # Forrest > > # Geronimo > > # Gump > > # Hadoop > > # Harmony > > # HiveMind > > # HttpComponents > > # iBATIS > > # Incubator > > # Jackrabbit > > # Jakarta > > # James > > # Labs > > # Lenya > > # Logging > > # Lucene > > # Maven > > # Mina > > # MyFaces > > # ODE > > # OFBiz > > # OpenEJB > > # OpenJPA > > # Perl > > # POI > > # Portals > > # Roller > > # Santuario > > # ServiceMix > > # Shale > > # SpamAssassin > > # STDCXX > > # Struts > > # Synapse > > # Tapestry > > # TCL > > # Tiles > > # Tomcat > > # Turbine > > # Velocity > > # Wicket > > # Web Services > > # Xalan > > # Xerces > > # XML > > # XMLBeans > > # XML Graphics > > > > > > Hmm.... seems all over the road in terms of naming conventions, yet, I > > know of, use, and refer to many of these projects all the time. I'd > > like to note also that "HTTP Server" is actually the apache web > > server, as I am sure you all know. So this supports Phil's point > > about not calling the ID-WSF 2 libraries "OpenLiberty." Obviously at > > the highest level (Apache foundation's list of projects) they decided > > it should not be referred to as apache, even though it is apache > > everywhere else in the world... there's a lot in a name. > > > > more later when I have had some time to think, > > > > asa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett McDowell wrote: > > > >> If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do > >> actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit -- > >> then how about.. > >> > >> option A: > >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit > >> OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit > >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit > >> > >> option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the > >> heart of WSF is the concept of "my services") > >> OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit > >> OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit > >> OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit > >> > >> option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just > >> keep the options on the table until we get a decision): > >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit > >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit > >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit > >> > >> option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe) > >> OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit > >> OpenLiberty Panda AppKit > >> OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit > >> > >> option E ?? > >> > >> But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision > >> anyway? I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George > >> Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official > >> independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this > >> project. And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we > >> need to add Phil and Prateek to that list. So maybe only Phil, > >> Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision? > >> Gentlemen, are we at that point yet? > >> > >> Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | > >> vCard | Calendar > >> < > http://www.google.com/calendar/hosted/ictprojects.com/embed?src=brett%40ictprojects.com&ctz=America/New_York > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Igf-dev mailing list > > Igf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > > > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.openliberty.org/pipermail/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org/attachments/20080325/46986d1a/attachment-0001.html From jason.rouault at hp.com Tue Mar 25 11:00:04 2008 From: jason.rouault at hp.com (Rouault, Jason (Security Management)) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:00:04 +0000 Subject: [Igf-dev] [wsf-dev] Governance & Naming In-Reply-To: <47E9329D.7010808@oracle.com> References: <1FF648C0-A5C3-4A50-9B69-F5215B9F01A7@zenn.net> <47E9329D.7010808@oracle.com> Message-ID: For what it's worth... I agree with Prateek. OpenLiberty is the home community, projects then reside under that.... as for what those projects are called, I can care less. Jason -----Original Message----- From: wsf-dev-bounces at lists.openliberty.org [mailto:wsf-dev-bounces at lists.openliberty.org] On Behalf Of Prateek Mishra Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:13 AM To: Asa Hardcastle Cc: wsf-dev at openliberty.org; igf-dev at lists.openliberty.org Subject: Re: [wsf-dev] [Igf-dev] Governance & Naming Sounds like a plan, I think Phil and I have CLAs signed for the IGF work at least I liked the article - unfortunately, I do think naming is a reasonable big deal - we are hoping that these projects are long-lived and some kind of compact handle is really, really good thing. I am worried about the proliferation of too many open's - OpenLiberty Panda or OpenLiberty XXX sounds about right to me. Anywayz, as you suggest, we should discuss this as a group of contributors and agree on some basic guidelines... - prateek > governance: > > I think we need to get the CLAs signed as Brett has suggested. > Any *guidelines* on project naming should be decided by this smaller > governance group. My suggestion is that we do this first, and then go > about naming our own projects. This smaller group should decide on > things like whether or not we want to have a convention that ties the > projects together e.g. "All projects begin with BeerAndWings, sub > projects are denoted with a suffix indicating their language, /J /C" > > > as for project naming in general: > > > On Naming an open source project: > http://www.advogato.org/article/67.html > > Here is a list of apache top level projects, many are headers for lots > of other projects (down below the list I make my point): > > # HTTP Server > # ActiveMQ > # Ant > # APR > # Beehive > # Cayenne > # Cocoon > # Commons > # Continuum > # DB > # Directory > # Excalibur > # Felix > # Forrest > # Geronimo > # Gump > # Hadoop > # Harmony > # HiveMind > # HttpComponents > # iBATIS > # Incubator > # Jackrabbit > # Jakarta > # James > # Labs > # Lenya > # Logging > # Lucene > # Maven > # Mina > # MyFaces > # ODE > # OFBiz > # OpenEJB > # OpenJPA > # Perl > # POI > # Portals > # Roller > # Santuario > # ServiceMix > # Shale > # SpamAssassin > # STDCXX > # Struts > # Synapse > # Tapestry > # TCL > # Tiles > # Tomcat > # Turbine > # Velocity > # Wicket > # Web Services > # Xalan > # Xerces > # XML > # XMLBeans > # XML Graphics > > > Hmm.... seems all over the road in terms of naming conventions, yet, I > know of, use, and refer to many of these projects all the time. I'd > like to note also that "HTTP Server" is actually the apache web > server, as I am sure you all know. So this supports Phil's point > about not calling the ID-WSF 2 libraries "OpenLiberty." Obviously at > the highest level (Apache foundation's list of projects) they decided > it should not be referred to as apache, even though it is apache > everywhere else in the world... there's a lot in a name. > > more later when I have had some time to think, > > asa > > > > > > > -- > Asa Hardcastle, Technical Lead, openLiberty ID-WSF ClientLib > Tel: +1.413.429.1044 Skype: subsystem7 > > > > > On Mar 22, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brett McDowell wrote: > >> If Phil has the premise correct -- i.e. if all the WSF projects do >> actually breakdown neatly into Toolkit, AppKit, and ProviderKit -- >> then how about.. >> >> option A: >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ToolKit >> OpenLiberty TrustFed AppKit >> OpenLiberty TrustFed ProviderKit >> >> option B: (I'm just throwing something out there... it seems the >> heart of WSF is the concept of "my services") >> OpenLiberty MyServices ToolKit >> OpenLiberty MyServices AppKit >> OpenLiberty MyServices ProviderKit >> >> option C (already one vote against this from Phil, but let's just >> keep the options on the table until we get a decision): >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ToolKit >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF AppKit >> OpenLiberty OpenWSF ProviderKit >> >> option D: (noting one vote for this from Phil... maybe) >> OpenLiberty Panda ToolKit >> OpenLiberty Panda AppKit >> OpenLiberty Panda ProviderKit >> >> option E ?? >> >> But I have a meta-question... who should be making this decision >> anyway? I think with Sampo, Conor and AOL (presumably George >> Fletcher) signing CLA's (any day now?) we finally have an official >> independent group of contributors to take over "governance" of this >> project. And since this naming does impact the other IGF project we >> need to add Phil and Prateek to that list. So maybe only Phil, >> Prateek, Asa, Sampo, Conor, and George need to make this decision? >> Gentlemen, are we at that point yet? >> >> Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | >> vCard | Calendar >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Igf-dev mailing list > Igf-dev at lists.openliberty.org > http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/igf-dev_lists.openliberty.org > _______________________________________________ Wsf-dev mailing list Wsf-dev at lists.openliberty.org http://lists.openliberty.org/mailman/listinfo/wsf-dev_lists.openliberty.org From phil.hunt at oracle.com Wed Mar 26 11:29:17 2008 From: phil.hunt at oracle.com (Phil Hunt) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:29:17 -0700 Subject: [Igf-dev] Reminder: IGF Call Tomorrow at 8AM Pacific Message-ID: Call in information available at: http://www.openliberty.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#Developer_Phone_Calls Phil Hunt Oracle From phil.hunt at oracle.com Wed Mar 26 20:36:54 2008 From: phil.hunt at oracle.com (Phil Hunt) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:36:54 -0700 Subject: [Igf-dev] Milestone 0.3 check-ins Message-ID: <535824C8-0EE1-4AF2-BD78-30CDF0045032@oracle.com> I have checked in major revisions supporting Revision 0.9 of the CARML draft. Major new features: * Full-function filters (including different matching types and sub- filter support for full boolean logic) * Find, Search now return DigitalSubjects including Attributes, Predicates, Roles (previously they only returned an identifier) * Authenticate has been renamed to Find (which must match one result) * Result set handling now supports asynchronous processing to enable large result set handling. * Schema (known as DataDefs in CARML) can be referenced in external CARML files. * Stricter schema rules on Interaction types. Note: the milestone 0.2 tests are currently passing. However there will likely be revisions as I revise JUnit testing to cover the new functionality and schema re-working for 0.3. Phil Hunt Oracle