Re: [soa-iwg] ECF remote services

[Zsolt Beothy-Elo <zsolt.beothy-elo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Scott,
I think there is a misunderstanding between you and Ricco. Obviously  
ECF is integrated with Equinox. What Ricco meant is integration with  
other SOA specific components that already are part of the SOA package  
or plan to be, especially integration / interoperability between ECF  
and Swordfish. I would envisage to offer Swordfish as a ECF protocol  
provider to fullfil the following to use cases.
a) Make a web service consumable as a OSGi remote service.
b) Expose an OSGi remote service as a webservice.
I know this i a very simplified view and there are a lot of subtleties  
to be considered and still there will be a lot of restrictions. But  
adding ECF together with the capabilities to communicate with web  
services would the user a truly integrated platform where he can use  
both technologies depending on the concrete problem domain, but still  
communicate with components based on the other technology. This would  
really add value to the package.
Hoped that helped clarifying what the IWG is aiming for.

Zsolt


Am 14.01.2010 um 10:24 schrieb Scott Lewis:

> Ricco Deutscher wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> Here is my summary: The SOA IWG is highly interested to include ECF  
>> as
>> an integrated part of the Eclipse SOA EPP package when
>> the group has clarity about (1) how it is integrated (architecture),
>
> ECF is already integrated with Equinox/other EclipseRT components...by
> virtue of us using Equinox as the OSGi framework.
> ECF is already integrated with OSGi itself by virtue of this being an
> implementation of an OSGi standard.
> ECF is already integrated with existing tooling, because existing
> tooling (PDE, DS) implements tooling for OSGi services...and with the
> remote services standard all of this tooling is immediately useful for
> creating/using remote services.
>
> If this does not represent 'integrated', then you must detail what you
> mean by 'integrated'...because the above seem to me like the important
> integrations for an EclipseRT project and OSGi standard-based SOA
> implementation.
>
> Again...if these are not the integrations you mean, then integrated  
> with
> what?  What would integration *mean*...if not integration via  
> *industry
> standards*?
>
>> (2) when it is integrated (roadmap),
>
> As indicated, it is already integrated with all the above.
>
>> and (3) who is the owner of the integration (resource commitment).
>
> We are the owner of these integrations, and have already done them  
> (and
> will continue to do them cooperatively with the relevant projects).
>
>> If you are not able to answer these 3 issues the group will wait  
>> until
>> somebody else steps up to make that happen.
>
> Make what happen?  Integration with what?  As I've stated, we are
> already integrated in the ways listed above.
>
> And the implication that we haven't already 'stepped up' (by
> providing/implementing this standard on behalf of the community) is
> insulting.  I consider implementing OSGi standards on behalf of the
> EclipseRT community as a great example of 'stepping up' to meet
> community needs with actual technical work.   If that's no longer
> considered 'stepping up', or no longer valued by the EF, member
> companies, or working groups, then it's time to find an organization
> whose values are not so screwed up.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> soa-iwg mailing list
> soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg