Cisco To Open-Source New Messaging Protocol 118
Esther Schindler writes "Do you use SOAP, CORBA or EJBs? You might want to take a look at Etch, writes James Turner for CIO.com. It's language-, platform- and transport-agnostic, and Cisco is planning to release it as open source. Certainly, it offers some technical benefits: 'In addition to a simplified configuration, Etch also promises less overhead over the wire, compared to SOAP. In a testbed environment where SOAP was managing around 900 calls a second, Etch generated more than 50,000 messages in a one-way mode, and 15,000 transactions with a full round-trip, company officials stated.' And the open source part? Cisco is in the process of deciding what license to use. 'The intent is to use a less restrictive license than GPL, perhaps Apache or Mozilla. This is to allow commercial developers to incorporate Etch into products without licensing issues. A final announcement on the licensing decision will be available in the next month.'"
GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, it sounds like LGPL is what's needed in this case, anyhow.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cisco, Please use the LGPLv3 license. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The company I work for sells closed source software. We also use some open source software (not GPL) in the product.
We contribute back to the open source we use because it's more sensible. Adding the same features back in again and again would be counterproductive. We'd rather they get added to the open source project permanently.
We have a blanket ban on using GPL'd source, though. We can't afford to GPL our entire 20 million line software stack, which would be the result of using even a tiny bit of GPL code.
Try to understand that not everyone loves the GPL and not everyone that doesn't love the GPL is a troll.
Now it's my turn to get modded into oblivion for not being fond of the GPL. Sigh.
performance stats are probably misleading (Score:1, Insightful)
Not saying that SOAP is the best solution. It is XML-based, which everyone realizes is a mixed bag. In particular, validating XML parsers have to be huge to cope with the specification bloat. But why should everyone rush to accept such a fundamental infrastructure piece from a single vendor? Any messaging scheme based on the old TLV (tag, length, value) scheme stored in network byte order would beat SOAP in performance tests. And as features are added to answer the diverse needs of the various communities, I expect performance degradation in the whatever-comes-after-SOAP, too.
Re:Microsoft's Kerberos (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Less overhead, more messages - but .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Distributed computing. (Score:5, Insightful)
SOAP was a 'quick and dirty solution (by Don Box IIRC) to (apart from getting a job at MS
CORBA... designed by committee to do everything including transport kitchen sinks.
Since I've been working in the industry there is a tendency for supposedly bright people to take something simple and 'make it a general purpose solution' or 'implement some framework features' which nearly always breaks it into a bloated POS far removed from the original, simple, easy to use, and effective solution.
I welcome Cisco's new protocol, I don't care if it doesn't do everything I might possibly ever want to do, as long as it does the majority of my work quickly and simply. I can work around the edge cases myself, possibly even (gosh!) redesigning the way those edge cases work.
Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking a huge proprietary application and adding a tiny bit of GPL is foolish, the GPL is best designed to work organically - it almost does what you need, you add the missing pieces and you have to distribute the changes with your binaries. Both suffer a bit from the "big change" problem, there's rarely anyone with incentive to do major changes, but the GPL suffers less because companies are often "forced" to release code they wouldn't have released if they didn't need to. In practise, I find that means there's a lot more GPL code I want to use - actual end-user applications that otherwise would have gone into the proprietary stack.
Stating your preference for BSD because it helps proprietary development is an honest opinion. But when you take on the role of end-user, the GPL means I can use it any way I want, I have the source to modify it any way I want and as a company you can do as much proprietary in-house modifications as you want. The only thing you can't do is sell/distribute proprietary versions to *drumroll* end-users. Every OSS developer including Linus himself is probably an end-user to 100x as many projects as they develop, so we're all end-users. So when someone tries to say to end users "You shouldn't use GPL software because it's not really free." they're have either completely misunderstood, are trolling or is pushing someone else's agenda. It's extra freedom, but not extra freedom that'll do the end users any good.
Re:ZeroC's ICE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there are plenty of groups out there who would quite happily take GPL code and add it to a closed source app, if the licence allowed them (and some that will do so even against the licence). Just because you haven't personally met them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Re:Um, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we really need to come up with a better term for this, or narrow the definition of an open specification.
Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
They are perfectly fine to include it (and they do include GCC, for instance), and even link to it (but then the derived work will have to be GPL'ed and they don't want that).
And some projects have the problem in the inverse direction. Linux can't benefit from dtrace except in design principles.
Or even the fantastic ZFS.
Oh well, I guess it's all down to the same premise: if you don't want/can't use it, then stop bitching and go write your own, spoiled brats...
Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
The GNU GPL is there to make sure every single user of GPL'ed code has the 4 software freedoms.
The BSD's only make sure for the first recipient.
I'm not claiming the first is better than the second (although I believe so), just that their purposes are different enough to make it a childish request instead of coding your own version like a real man.
Re:GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Or else the exemption allows the code to become relicensed as BSD when included in a BSD project - then I can start a "GNU/Linux/BSD" project which is simply a repackaging of regular GNU/Linux under a BSD license.
It's not the place of the GPL to provide such an exception, it's the place of project owners to provide such an exception for their project if they desire it.
FWIW, there's some awesome stuff in BSD, but personally I feel like if I'm providing my code to you, and you find it useful the least you can do is provide your changes to my code back to me so the rest of the world can benefit.