Right, I tried to make that distinction but I guess it wasn't clear. Obviously we are talking about projects that are embedding Felix in their distributions.
Chris On 1/11/07, BJ Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Chris Custine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/11/2007 01:42:02 PM: > Hi Richard, > I am sure you have considered this, but would the board be interested in > hearing about any of the known projects that are using or soon to use > Felix? Unfortunately I can't find any that have gone through an official > release that used Felix, but there are some that are upcoming (SIP > Communicator, and maybe Mule 2.0?) > > Somewhat related, I was also thinking that a "powered by Felix" page on the > Wiki or site docs might be a nice touch. While I know of several projects > that are now adding proper bundle headers to the manifests in their > distribution jars, I think the number of apps actually USING Felix framework > is going to gradually increase in the next few months as well. > If a projects ship with an embedded Felix, then "powered by Felix" is appropriate. But if they are just including OSGi manifest headers in their jars, then that is just standard OSGi bundles which will run on any framework impl. In that case "powered by OSGi" would be a better choice :-) BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: +1 407 849 9117 mobile: +1 386 848 3788
