13 May 2008 - 1:38pm, Rod Johnson (not verified) said:
Bob
Re your concluding points:
@Bob There's value here, but it'll eventually be done in a clean commodity version (for all, including ISVs).
With this product we're focused on delivering value to end users (for whom GPL is fine), and not ISVs, who include competitors. For example, regarding Billy's post: if IBM were to be able to incorporate the SpringSource Application Platform's kernel into WebSphere without paying us, they could compete with us with our own code. How would this be fair when WebSphere is closed source?
As for "eventually done in a clean commodity version": let's have that discussion when it happens. We have a lead now. We hope to maintain and extend it. Sure, we'd welcome competition. We're providing the middleware kernel BMW would build. If IBM or anyone else wants to provide the Ford Crown Victoria in EPL or ASL just because they don't like our license, that's fine.
@Bob Legitimate concern that the Spring framework itself will get stale
I don't see how this concern is legitimate. There is overwhelming evidence that contradicts such pure speculation. Consider the huge number of releases recently in the Spring Portfolio: Spring Framework 2.5, Spring Web Flow 2.0, Spring Security 2.0, Spring Web Services 1.5, Spring Batch 1.0...
The SpringSource Application Platform is a key part of SpringSource's plan to become a large independent middleware vendor. That is good news for the Spring Portfolio, which SpringSource overwhelmingly resources.
@Bob This still doesn't help with operations, nor does it do much for reliability (a post for another day)
We already have operational features above Tomcat in this release, but I agree that it was not the main focus of the release.
Bob Re your concluding
Bob
Re your concluding points:
@Bob There's value here, but it'll eventually be done in a clean commodity version (for all, including ISVs).
With this product we're focused on delivering value to end users (for whom GPL is fine), and not ISVs, who include competitors. For example, regarding Billy's post: if IBM were to be able to incorporate the SpringSource Application Platform's kernel into WebSphere without paying us, they could compete with us with our own code. How would this be fair when WebSphere is closed source?
As for "eventually done in a clean commodity version": let's have that discussion when it happens. We have a lead now. We hope to maintain and extend it. Sure, we'd welcome competition. We're providing the middleware kernel BMW would build. If IBM or anyone else wants to provide the Ford Crown Victoria in EPL or ASL just because they don't like our license, that's fine.
@Bob Legitimate concern that the Spring framework itself will get stale
I don't see how this concern is legitimate. There is overwhelming evidence that contradicts such pure speculation. Consider the huge number of releases recently in the Spring Portfolio: Spring Framework 2.5, Spring Web Flow 2.0, Spring Security 2.0, Spring Web Services 1.5, Spring Batch 1.0...
The SpringSource Application Platform is a key part of SpringSource's plan to become a large independent middleware vendor. That is good news for the Spring Portfolio, which SpringSource overwhelmingly resources.
@Bob This still doesn't help with operations, nor does it do much for reliability (a post for another day)
We already have operational features above Tomcat in this release, but I agree that it was not the main focus of the release.
Rgds
Rod