As for why the code suits Johannes and Sasha's need better than the CXF or
the Cellar one, I'm sure they can answer that part if not already done.

Mostly we are looking for a high-performance + minimal dependency DOSGi implementation and the abandoned fabric-dosgi seems to fit that bill. The initial thought was to make this a new implementation of an RSA that runs on both JBoss and Karaf. We thought if there was an interest in the Karaf community and Red Hat would be willing to donate the code, that we could fix it up to be spec compliant and then integrate it into Karaf. However after the feedback in this thread we realize that it would be a better plan to not implement the whole RSA spec and instead focus on integrating with an existing RSA like CXF or ECF. We can certainly modify and use the implementation (since it is ASL2) even if Red Hat is not willing to donate (or no community wants to integrate it), we just thought it might be in everyones interested to move it under the roof of an active opensource project to increase adoption. Karaf was simply our first thought and seeing the interesting discussion here I think it was a good place to start the discussion at least :-)

Am 22.02.2016 um 16:37 schrieb David Bosschaert:
I think Aries would be an excellent venue for this.
Aries is quite a context-independent place for OSGi components and you can
see lots of reuse of Aries components in a variety of other projects. So
yes, if both CXF and Karaf want to consume it Aries sounds like a good
place to me.

Aries sounds great to me as well, and so does CXF or ECF. The only thing to keep in mind is that there is unfortunately no interface defined for this functionality in the spec, so the implementation will have to be specific to one RSA implementation (or possibly multiple with optional dependencies).
In that regard I will reply to Christian and Scott separately.
If Red Hat is willing to donate, an Apache Project might be easier than an Eclipse project since it already is ASL code, but maybe I am wrong about that.


Johannes

Reply via email to