Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Aceu2009 Open Source For Interoperability


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Aceu2009 Open Source For Interoperability

  1. 1. Open Source for Interoperability Paul Fremantle VP, Apache Synapse Member, ASF CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2
  2. 2. Why am I talking about this? <ul><li>Co-Chair, OASIS WSRX TC </li></ul><ul><li>Some of my most read blog entries: </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Incubator project – Stonehenge </li></ul>
  3. 3. Specification Standard
  4. 4. Specifications <ul><li>Anyone can write a spec </li></ul><ul><li>The aim of a spec is technical not political </li></ul><ul><li>A good spec should say just enough: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Too much and it becomes restrictive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Too little and it cannot be implemented interoperably </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Standards What makes a standard?
  6. 7. Standard <ul><li>“ Authoritative or recognized exemplar of quality or correctness” (1477) </li></ul>
  7. 9. A circular definition <ul><li>What makes a standard is a standard’s body! </li></ul>
  8. 10. Neutrality
  9. 12. Two types of Openness <ul><li>Openness to join the standards body </li></ul><ul><li>Openness of the specifications </li></ul>
  10. 13. Open to join?
  11. 15. Apache and RF <ul><li>This is a significant issue when Apache looks at projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The good news is a big push towards OPEN Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. OASIS and W3C Royalty Free initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft Open Specification Promise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul></ul>
  12. 17. Governance
  13. 18. Process
  14. 19. API
  15. 21. ABI
  16. 22. Interoperability is more than just Standards
  17. 23. PAM
  18. 24. Why do companies participate in Standards?
  19. 26. Standards provide a forum for competitors to co-operate
  20. 27. What is the reality of standards bodies?
  21. 29. Standards committees are rarely about unfettered co-operation
  22. 30. Standards bodies and interoperability <ul><li>Companies don’t like publishing results until everything works </li></ul><ul><li>Testing is not the main aim of the standards team members </li></ul><ul><li>The focus of a standards committee is often about trying to get the most advantage for your company </li></ul>
  23. 32. Open Source
  24. 33. Open Source is not just Code
  25. 34. The same principles apply <ul><li>Fairness and Openness to participate </li></ul><ul><li>Governance </li></ul><ul><li>Openness of interactions </li></ul><ul><li>“ Open Development” </li></ul>
  26. 35. So what’s the Difference between Open Standards and Open Source?
  27. 36. Open Source
  28. 37. Open Source provides a forum for real collaboration
  29. 38. Stonehenge
  30. 39. Open Source approach to Interoperability <ul><li>Incubator project </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperability for WS-* </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SOAP, MTOM, WS-Addressing, WS-Sec, WS-RM, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Started in December 2008 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contributors from Microsoft, WSO2, Redhat/JBoss, Progress/IONA, Eviware </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interest from Sun/Metro </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Based around an existing effort to define an interoperable application </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ StockTrader” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 40. StockTrader
  32. 41. Stonehenge basics <ul><li>Website: </li></ul><ul><li>SVN: </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Mailing List: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>
  33. 42. Getting involved <ul><li>Do you have experience of a WS-* stack? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Aiming to release M1 milestone release this month </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M2 will add distributed identity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Would you like to improve our website? </li></ul><ul><li>Would you just like to see sample interoperable code? </li></ul>
  34. 43. Challenges with doing this @ Apache <ul><li>Does Apache do interop? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not yet, but this isn’t the only example </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do OSS developers want to write interop apps? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes, some of them! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is Apache better than setting up a new organization or going to SourceForge? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Definitely </li></ul></ul>
  35. 44. Alternatives? <ul><li>WS-I </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Words (profiles) not Action (code) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Profiles are useful but have been too slow to emerge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I’m guessing its bogged down in politics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No open discussion so its hard to say </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WSTF </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emerged about the same time as Stonehenge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Running endpoints vs Code </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Default behaviour: closed until a vote to open </li></ul></ul>
  36. 45. How does Stonehenge fit with the previous discussion? <ul><li>Testing ABIs not APIs </li></ul><ul><li>Using Apache governance model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meritocracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neutrality (between vendors) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Open access to contribute or just lurk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Royalty Free approach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NO GAMING </li></ul><ul><li>The code can be directly copied to help get started </li></ul><ul><li>Designed to encourage co-operation not competition </li></ul>
  37. 46. Questions?