Dennis Reedy wrote: "Forget about OSGi for now, its a red herring for River moving out of incubation, and frankly a bit of noise that produces the same reaction every time it is posted. This is not to say the each technology (combined or separate) does not have its merits/issues, its just time to move on. ..."
I agree with the last phrase of the last sentence. But it's remarkable how differently we collectively disagree with what "...moving on..." means! To some, "moving on" means embracing OSGi, particularly distributed OSGi (D-OSGi). To others, it means treating OSGi as orthogonal to Jini/River. Dennis calls it "noise" and I call it "opportunity" and "vision". I believe proliferation of OSGi technology / services framework will enable "convergence" on a scale heretofore unseen. Sectors such as Enterprise, Residential, Automotive, Mobile, Bio-medical, etc interoperate more seamlessly and dynamically about a "functional internetwork" at Internet scale. I know you guys are very busy, but it would be nice if the most experienced Jini/River software engineers were able to dissect the [OSGi] RFC 119 and provide an assessment as to how or if it is "suited" for Jini/River. I know it's tough to allocate time to do that though. Sam On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Sam Chance <[email protected]> wrote: > Well said, Jukka! > > Gregg, I say you do something with Jini and OSGi. :-) Seriously, what > about a semantic LUS? Build a way to query for Services using Semantic > technologies like RDF and SPARQL. Or use Jini to manage distributed OSGi > bundles (RDF 119 is Distributed OSGi). Or build an AJAX front-end for > lifecycle management of Jini federations and services. > > Just some thoughts. > > > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Gregg Wonderly<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > What happens next is what the community decides. I'd like to play a >> part, >> > but to date, everything that I've found to be interesting and wanted to >> do >> > differently in Jini has not been that interesting to the rest of the >> > community. >> >> Does it matter? Apart from the the test suite there currently is no >> active work being done on River trunk. Anyone with the energy to back >> up his or her proposals with solid patches gets to decide where River >> is going. If others don't agree, they'll need to come up with >> alternative patches that solve the same issues. >> >> > So, I'm setting back, waiting for something to start rolling that I am >> > interested in, and I'll jump in to assist as best I can, as I am needed. >> >> That's the wrong attitude. Just get started and others will follow! At >> Apache those who do, decide. >> >> BR, >> >> Jukka Zitting >> > > > > -- > Sam Chance > 443-694-5293 (m) > 410-694-0240 x108 (o) > -- Sam Chance 443-694-5293 (m) 410-694-0240 x108 (o)
