The discussion on this part of the proposal reflects the origins of it -
people with an interest in AppServers and integration runtimes that are
looking to the new EEG specs to provide additional capability in their
world so that existing applications can begin to take advantage of OSGi
with minimum barrier to entry. There will be tensions in implementing
the specs to work in a way that reflects how these apps are built today
vs how we'd start afresh given that opportunity. When the question "why
do we need to accomodate the baggage of XYZ in the
servlet/JNDI/JTA/JMX/JPA/... spec comes up it will be the AppServer and
integration runtime folks who have the need for accomodating the
quirkier corners of "legacy" Java EE behaviour. They are going to have a
perspective that is a little different from one whose success criteria
is OSGi spec compliance without a need to additionally accomodate some
of the warts, or integrate with some of the other features, of Java EE.
Given this slightly different perspective (and the warts) it is perhaps
understandable that a community with this interest might see value in
developing its own culture within the laws of the (Apache) land, while
living in peace with its neighbours.
Ian Robinson
Richard S. Hall wrote:
There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am
aware and I certainly didn't know about it in advance.
And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original
criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix".
I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should go into Felix,
I too think it should have its own identity. I was always only ever
referring to the independent OSGi spec implementations. I was arguing
that Felix is a good place to work on them, since it is part of what
it is trying to achieve.
Further, I don't really understand the implication that somehow the
burden is now on the Felix community to go and contribute to Aries on
OSGi spec implementations just because of this proposal, when there
was no attempt to work with the Felix community on creating OSGi spec
implementations in the first.
The only conclusions I see being drawn by people who have invested
very little in Felix is that we should dismantle the Felix charter so
that we can accommodate the fact that some people don't want to play
with us.
At that rate, I stand by my previous "vote" and otherwise people can
do whatever they want in Aries.
-> richard
On 9/3/09 13:23, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Kevan,
Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here? I
got the
impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising... If I am
wrong,
what was the meat of such?
I'm also less happy with the rhetoric here repeated over and over,
seemingly
uninterested in discussion of reaching a solution everyone can
accept. (From
both camps, btw)
-- Niclas
On Sep 4, 2009 12:53 AM, "Kevan Miller"<kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:> On Thu, Sep 3,
2009 at
3:19 AM, William A. Ro...
Totally agree. Had certainly hoped that Felix committers would be
interested
in joining...
--kevan
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: gene...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
