> > Rather, I see pax as being a little higher on the value chain. _Based > > on_ OSGi, pax provides various utilities for productivity. > > Well, to me Pax is all about "OSGi in Action", and making it possible > to create real-world applications, and not dev tools and hypothetical > cases.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but as Peter says in his mail, probably the issue here is that there doesn't yet seem to be a clear vision for OSGi. Let's use what you say next as a starting point, maybe... > Now, IMHO the "validation" of bundles on frameworks is in line > with that. So are the Pax Construct and Pax Runner, tools to make > real applications possible. Totally agree. > But I also agree that Pax Web (a fully compliant spec implementation) > were needed to not program against observed behavior, for advanced > apps like for instance Pax Wicket, which in reality drove the need for > Pax Web. Sure, not a problem. (And great work, too, Alin!) But since this doesn't fit with the purpose of ops4j in the long term (which I guess is what we're discussing here), I think stuff like this should be handed over (such as to Felix in this case) so ops4j can keep its focus. Part of what I'm trying to say is that because of the current lack of collective vision, it feels like there isn't a lot of focus right now... Maybe I'm wrong, you tell me. I don't think ops4j will get very far if we scratch an itch to get out version 0.5, then let a project die there. But then again, maybe projects that wither is just part of the natural life cycle... > > Case in point is pax-wicket. For me, this is probably _the_ most > > interesting project at ops4j. > > Well, sounds like selfish speech ;o) Not sure what you mean. I say "for me", so yeah, my own opinion is by definition selfish. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
