I have no problem with it per se. You guys should go for it. It's your
effort and I'm not trying stop you but only draw some attention to the
surrounding environment. I think the proposal should attempt to be a
little more clear about but that's was a request not something I was
specifically asking for. You'll do what you do, if you guys figure
stuff out with the p2 guys great. If not, that's fine too.
+1
On 5-Apr-09, at 12:50 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what your problem with this proposal is
exactly but I sure would like to. Let me try to get some things clear
in order to be able to get to the bottom of this. Don't let any
previous comments side-track you and lets try to focus on the
proposal:
I don't see where the proposal is mentioning OBR in the first place.
Let alone where it would say anything about it being a standard or
anything. Its only listed as an external dependency.
There is no pointer to OBR (other then that it is a dependency) nor is
there a pointer to p2. That is not suspicious as the project is not
about any of the two other then it should be able to use obr and p2
repositories and infrastructure where it makes sense.
I completely agree that it would be great if there would be an active
and healthy collaboration between the projects but I'm not sure this
has to be in the proposal. It certainly doesn't say anything to the
opposite (unless I'm missing something?).
Finally, the proposal already does say: "When assembling software out
of reusable components, the task of deploying software onto an ever
increasing number of targets is not trivial to solve. This becomes
even harder when these targets require different components based on
who's using them." What else do you think is necessary to make it
clear that provisioning is a hard problem as you say?
From this point, would you say that what you like to see is a
paragraph that mentions that the current luminis implementation uses
OBR and that the project will look into using p2 as well? I'm sure
that this can be arranged.
regards,
Karl
I'm suggesting that you two groups figure out how to work together
on a
very hard problem.
I'm also saying that you are unlikely to out do the 5 man years in p2
already.
As I said in the previous email if you want to make a competing
system
that's fine. But don't couch the proposal as something that's new
and hasn't
been addressed elsewhere because it has.
You might want to be more clear in the proposal about p2 being a
competitor,
also make it clear that OBR has gone back to specification, and
what it is
you're actually working from. So when a user or potential developer
looks at
this and says what specification are you working from they can see
"there
isn't one yet", and if they ask "what about p2?", then it's clear you
decided not to collaborate with them. I think you can even point
out that
they didn't collaborate with you either. Give people all the
information.
When I walked into the OSGi BOF at Eclipse I was dumbfounded. The
same dose
of sniping and grin fucking as other groups I've worked with which
was
disappointing but I guess I'm not surprised. There were attacks
abound at
EclipseCon. The way p2 came into existence probably could have been
handled
better, no doubt. But I don't find guys like Hal very compelling
with his
melodrama
(http://www.tensegrity.hellblazer.com/2009/03/osgi-rfp-122---the-osgi-bundle-repository.html
).
Make it clear to people looking at the proposal that provisioning
is a hard
problem. These arguments about the "Eclipse way" of p2 and non-
focus on
server side or other types of systems is nonsense. If you actually
have a
pointer to p2 in your proposal -- which is conspicuously absent --
siting
them as a direct competitor users will have a clear point of
reference. If
people had the background story they will probably go WTF just like
I did.
Both sides of the p2/OBR seem to be equally obstinate and non-
collaborative.
I used p2 because from a technical level as an end user because it
worked.
There are nightly builds, lots of documentation and at least 5 people
working on it full-time at any given point in time. If you look at
the p2
code and the OBR spec they are 90% the same thing and any
differences are
easily compensated for with a little effort.
Competition is fine, I would just be more open about that aspect of
it in
the proposal.
On 5-Apr-09, at 8:47 AM, Karl Pauls wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com>
wrote:
On 5-Apr-09, at 2:46 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
Hello Jason,
On Apr 5, 2009, at 1:09 , Jason van Zyl wrote:
Equinox p2 was designed to replace the aging Update Manager in
Eclipse. It focusses on installing Eclipse-based applications
from
scratch and updating them and can be extended to manage other
types
of artifacts. If you look at the "agent" part, it is geared
towards
desktop environments
Not true.
Jeff McAffer's demo at EclipseCon is a case in point. He
provisioned
an EC2 node using p2. [...] Jeff is very much focused on server
side
provisioning as am I.
Let me rephrase that, it's geared more towards desktop and server
environments, as compared to smaller (embedded, mobile)
environments.
That
was the point I was trying to make here.
Note though, I'm no Equinox p2 expert. :)
Then why are you proposing this when you don't even know what
p2 is
capable of?
We started working on this system when p2 did not even exist. I
even
remember talking to Jeff in those days about our system, but they
decided to
make their own, so you could equally well make this argument the
other
way
round.
I'll use the same story I used on Richard. I created a DI and
runtime
system
5 years ago. So what. Guice and Equinox have a massive user
community,
professional support is available for both and so I will cull the
technologies I developed. I don't think it really matters so much
who was
first but who got to a production system first that is known and
support
by
thousands of users.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't incubate projects that overlap
with an existing production system outside the ASF?
It's just my opinion but anyone doing provisioning with OSGi
has had
their asses handed to them on a plate by the p2 guys.
In my opinion, p2 is fine if you are already doing everything "the
Eclipse
way" and are targetting desktops and servers. There are however
other
types
of systems that need provisioning, and Apache Ace tries to cater
for
those
too.
Again you haven't really even looked at p2. What is the "Eclipse
way" ?
You're going to make/keep another system entirely because it's the
"Eclipse
way" ? I've seen JBoss and Tomcat servers provisioned with p2 so
I'm not
sure what the "Eclipse way" means. I'll repeat again that p2 is not
targeting desktops whatever aspects may appear most visible right
now. I
really don't think there is a system that couldn't be provisioned
even
with
p2 in its current state. I have personally not found one yet.
I don't think anyone is attacking p2. If people like and use it:
great. I certainly think the proposed project should be able to
interoperate with p2 repositories seamlessly. It sure would be great
If you could suggest any improvements to the proposal in the area of
interoperability with p2.
With that out of the way, I do think there is room for another
provisioning solution out there. Granted, it might be that it just
doesn't have any added value over p2 and that people are going to
ignore it but I'd say this risk exists for all projects, no?
During the incubation, we will see whether the project is able to
attract enough users and contributors. The initial interest looks
very
promising IMO.
regards,
Karl
Oleg and I were trying to make something and after looking
around at
everything -- and we did look at OBR -- we decided that p2 was
good
enough and we would help improve that.
OBR is a repository for components, augmented with metadata that
describes
dependencies. As such it's not a provisioning system, so in my
opinion
you
should not compare it to p2.
There's nothing wrong with competition but I think anyone doing
OSGi
provisioning is just going to look around in a year and find p2
has
95% of the market. It's a complicated problem and I think p2 is a
solid base and be improved and adapted to support things like
OBR or
anything else including non-OSGi systems.
Nobody can look into the future, and since both p2 and Ace are
indeed
software provisioning solutions, there will definitely be
overlap in
features. There are also differences though. In the end, the
users will
decide what they like best.
There's no doubt they will.
Greetings, Marcel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence
in.
No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow.
They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically
dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of
dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or
goals are in doubt.
-- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
Karl Pauls
karlpa...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
To do two things at once is to do neither.
-—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
Karl Pauls
karlpa...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track
of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget
the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful
groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a
clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as
signs of decline and decay.
-- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
