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
