Fwiw, I think Christian was referring to the JAX-RS WHITEBOARD, not the JAX-RS spec itself. That one is an RFC from the OSGi Alliance... RFC-127 afaik.
2017-01-18 13:34 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com>: > Christian, your example of JAX-RS Whiteboard is fascinating, because > JAX-RS was designed by the Expert Groups of the JCP, not by the Apache > community. The same is true of many of the JavaEE specifications > implemented within Apache. > > So, Apache has always worked pragmatically to implement specifications > emerging from external standards bodies. It seems odd therefore to single > out OSGi. > > Neil > > > On 18 Jan 2017, at 11:25, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> > wrote: > > > > I agree with Guillaume that the way the specs are defined is not fully > compatible to the way apache projects are managed. > > In apache the idea is that the design of a component is defined by the > community. > > > > Like in jax-rs-whiteboard .. if it was a pure apache thing then changes > in the interfaces would be proposed on the dev list and agreed on there. > > As the interfaces are part of the spec this is out of direct reach for > the aries community. > > > > On the other hand I understand that the final decision about the spec > has to be at the OSGi alliance and even that only members may decide. > > So I think this gap can not be fully solved but maybe we can improve it. > > > > So what I could imagine is this: > > > > - Changes on the spec should be immediately visible to the apache > community. This could be done using a github repo where the source of the > spec resides and an automated snapshot build. So all changes could be > followed directly and the newest spec jars would always be available. > > - Protocols of the expert group meetings could be posted to the dev list > > > > Both improvements would shorten the feedback loop and give the apache > community at least more visibility of the spec progress. The community > could then also directly give feedback to the protocols as well as api > changes on the dev list. So this would of course still not allow the apache > community to drive the spec but I think it would be a good compromise. > > > > Christian > > > > On 18.01.2017 11:59, David Bosschaert wrote: > >> Hi Guillaume, > >> > >> First of all, the OSGi Alliance is a very open standards development > >> organization. Any organisation can join. RFPs and RFCs are developed in > the > >> open, specs are available for free and are free to be implemented by > anyone. > >> > >> There is also an open feedback channel available where everyone can post > >> feedback, described at https://github.com/osgi/design > >> > >> OSGi works very hard in defining specs that are portable and can be > >> implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything of that > >> sort. > >> > >> History has shown that spec implementations are really quite portable. > >> Implementation bundles can be mixed from different sources and > everything > >> just works as long as you use the specced APIs. > >> > >> Every new spec that is being worked on in OSGi needs, besides the > RFP/RFC > >> and spec chapter, a Reference Implementation and a Conformance > Testsuite. > >> Over the past 10 years or so, Reference Implementations have primarily > been > >> implemented in open source. This has the benefit that everyone can see > what > >> the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to provide > >> feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers have > free > >> access to the relevant CTs as well. > >> > >> I think this is all goodness. Or would you rather see that Reference > >> Implementations are implemented in private? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> David > >> > >> > >> On 18 January 2017 at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities. > >>> > >>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic > thing > >>> for a project is that people can get involved. > >>> > >>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference > implementation > >>> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being > >>> developed at the OSGi Alliance. I find that very disturbing because > >>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi > Alliance > >>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho. > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> Guillaume Nodet > >>> > > > > > > -- > > Christian Schneider > > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > > > Open Source Architect > > http://www.talend.com > > > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: gno...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
