MuleSource launched a Registry/Repository yesterday. I guess it looks remarkably similar to WSO2's:
- Both use a REST model
- Both use AtomPub - both via Apache Abdera
- Both support versioning
- Both support search
I haven't had a chance to really look at this yet, but I think there is one clear difference - and that is between Published Source and Open Source. WSO2's Registry development has been done completely openly - all discussions on an open mailing list, public commits, public SVN. This has encouraged at least two developers to get involved, start coding and submit patches.
When you look at the code commits here:
http://svn.galaxy.muleforge.org/ you can clearly see that more than half the Galaxy code was checked in during the last week. Kudos to Dan for single-handedly coding this!
UPDATE: Anne Thomas Manes has written about this:
http://apsblog.burtongroup.com/2008/01/mulesource-rele.html
8 comments:
I think you're misreading the FishEye graph. Due to some weird SVN/Maven bug, when you tag the release the lines of code actually doubles inside FishEye. Annoys me to no end to be honest. At least our FishEye works though ;-)
While we did develop Galaxy internally for a while, that doesn't mean it won't be run as an open source project. We happily accept contributions and will be working with developers in an open-source matter now that we have the necessary infrastructure set up. We have already hadjavascript:void(0)
Publish Your Comment outside developer interest on doing a Japanese translation for instance. And we've been migrating all our stuff to a public JIRA.
Regarding similarities/differences, I think we've gone a bit beyond what you've published so far (i.e. support for policies and artifact metadata), but thats just my opinion based on looking only at your docs. :-)
Dan
Sorry to misread the fisheye. I'm glad the Galaxy will be moving to support open development.
I haven't downloaded Galaxy yet either, but we certainly support artefact metadata. We also have a model to support policies via extension points.
Paul
Here's an idea: perhaps WSO2 and Mule could work collaboratively on a single core codebase for this at apache? If y'all are both doing Atompub stuff using Abdera, for example, there's no reason I can see that both projects couldn't share a common implementation.
James
As you know - WSO2 is a very Apache friendly company - and currently the Registry is Apache licensed. However, I don't think Mule licensing is compatible with Apache.
Paul
Hey Paul,
Galaxy is GPL. We were actually trying to figure out how we could work on data models with you guys but as is often the case WS02 seems to insist on taking shots instead of working with others.
Perhaps we can powwow instead of comment on blogs?
-dave
Dave
Wow... how very sensitive. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was taking any shots at you guys. Are you saying that GPL is now compatible with Apache?
I think you've done something really interesting and valuable here and I'd be very willing to work on data models and APIs with you. I think we could make a de-facto standard that would beat the pants off UDDI any day.
Paul
Fantastic. We should sync up on a standard set of data models and make them freely available .
We are still considering v3 for the Apache compatibility though it seems fairly common for GPL products to contain Apache licensed code.
This is why all the law firms love open source
Dave
One final thing. I think we are talking at cross-purposes.
When I started talking about licenses I was responding to James' suggestion that we both contribute code to Apache and form a project.
Now the discussion about compatibility with GPLv3 and Apache is like this: the GPL guys (FSF) declared that GPLv2 is not compatible with ASL2, and that GPLv3 is compatible. What that means is that GPLv3 codebases can use Apache License code.
However, this discussion has nothing to do with what can be donated to or used by Apache. Apache does not accept GPL code (either v2 or v3) and it is not permissible to link to GPL code from Apache projects. Similarly any code donated to Apache has to be donated under the Apache License. That was my only point. It was in no way a shot at MuleSource... I have a lot of respect for your team. I was simply pointing out a basic license issue.
Paul
Post a Comment