RFC-217 sorry https://github.com/osgi/design/tree/master/rfcs/rfc0217
2017-01-18 13:36 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>: > 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/ > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Red Hat, Open Source Integration Email: gno...@redhat.com Web: http://fusesource.com Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
