On Fri September 4 2009 9:27:23 am Graham Charters wrote: > Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the > suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix. I don't > see this approach being taken for other specification organizations > (JCP, OASIS, etc.) and I think that is to the benefit of Apache. For > example, whilst a goal of Geronimo is JEE compliance it does not host > all the implementations of the JEE specifications. Having OpenEJB, > OpenJPA, Tomcat, etc as separate projects allows them to evolve > independent communities, with cross-pollination. The domains, > technologies and skills required to cover the entirety of JEE are > diverse and the same is true for OSGi. To put these under one project > would lead to sub-groups of different interests under one disjoint > umbrella community.
+1 Geronimo is a perfect example. Couldn't have said it better myself. The community of the "experts" in the technology area should be the ones implementing those specs as part of their community. Dan > > I also worry about the practicalities of saying that all OSGi spec > implementations belong in Felix. This is a moving target, both within > each specification, where extensions may be created and then > standardized and also at the spec level, where new concepts are > created and then standardized. Must these then move under the Felix > umbrella, which will undoubtedly create a lot of churn for users of, > and contributors to, Aries? > > Thinking about the problem the way JEE is handled makes me wonder if > Felix could pull in spec implementations from Aries (and have > committers on Aries) and therefore still contribute to and provide the > distribution of the entire OSGi Service Platform. Maybe this could be > done through Felix hosting a bundle repository (Felix commons?)? > Consumers of Felix would be able to get the OSGi Service Platform and > consumers of Aries would get the enterprise OSGi application portions. > > I'd like to emphasize that the desire to be separate from Felix is in > no way a criticism of that project. I have a huge amount of respect > for what Richard et al continue to achieve and having experienced > first-hand the value the combination of Felix and Equinox bring to the > OSGi standards, I sincerely believe that OSGi is far stronger as a > result. > > The desire to remain separate is based purely on the belief that this > is the approach which will best serve the goals of evolving an > enterprise OSGi application programming model, and a community around > its definition. This rationale is also the reason why Geronimo was > not suggested (an equally valid choice given the majority of the > Enterprise OSGi specifications leverage JEE technologies). I guess > what I don't understand is why the Incubator would not prove or > disprove this belief, without making a prior decision? > > Regards, Graham. > > 2009/9/4 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>: > > As a point of note, not all OSGi spec implementations live in Felix even > > at Apache today. The Remote Services/Distributed OSGi reference > > implementation is a sub project of CXF. I think Tuscany has an > > implementation as well. > > > > So far, there hasn't been any discussion about moving those into Felix. > > Your argument below makes it sound like they should be. > > > > Dan > > > > On Thu September 3 2009 1:33:04 pm 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 > > > > -- > > Daniel Kulp > > dk...@apache.org > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
