Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Ace
Jason, Although, we keep trying to point out that OBR != p2, you seem to keep missing that point. OBR is a simple repository model and API for accessing it, that's all it is...it is not a provisioning system. As such, OBR has been done for a long time. All other functionality should be hopefully be buildable as layers on top, such as what Luminis has done with their provisioning work. You act like there is some gotcha that OBR is not an OSGi spec, but OBR has always existed outside of the OSGi specs, so who cares? The proposal literally only mentions the letters OBR once as a dependency and nothing more. It is hardly the main selling point. No one was shouting about OBR or p2, that was only you. Also, the notion that we should just lay down because we can't compete with some big company and all these man years they have invested is somewhat ridiculous. If we all bought into that, then none of us would be here. If you just wanted to point out that p2 should be mentioned as a competing technology in the proposal, I think you could have accomplished that in a more reasonable manner. Lastly, it is somewhat difficult for me to take community building lessons from someone who claims to have had an OSGi awakening and is willing to cull all of their own personal projects as a result, yet I can count on probably a couple fingers how many discussions you've instigated (or even responded to) regarding OSGi, OBR, or any topic in the Felix community in all the years it has existed. - richard On 4/5/09 2:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: 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.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Ace
On 6-Apr-09, at 12:33 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: Jason, Although, we keep trying to point out that OBR != p2, you seem to keep missing that point. The argument is not lost on me. That they are not that far apart insofar as providing a repository system with an API to retrieve and manipulate artifacts is the point you are missing. They are not that wildly different and one could either of the easily evolve into the other. That's why I keep pointing it out because when anyone said OBR at EclipseCon the word provisioning always followed in the next sentence. Followed by a comparison with p2. I think both technologies are relevant in any discussion about provisioning OSGi. OBR is a simple repository model and API for accessing it, that's all it is...it is not a provisioning system. As such, OBR has been done for a long time. All other functionality should be hopefully be buildable as layers on top, such as what Luminis has done with their provisioning work. You act like there is some gotcha that OBR is not an OSGi spec, but OBR has always existed outside of the OSGi specs, so who cares? The proposal literally only mentions the letters OBR once as a dependency and nothing more. It is hardly the main selling point. No one was shouting about OBR or p2, that was only you. In a year from now when anyone is talking about provisioning OSGi what do you think the main underlying technologies bases will be? They will be OBR and p2. Either one of them will be expanded and changed and they will be the basis of most if not all provisioning technologies. I think you know that as well as I do. Also, the notion that we should just lay down because we can't compete with some big company and all these man years they have invested is somewhat ridiculous. If we all bought into that, then none of us would be here. As I also stated there are lots of small companies involved as well. I'm just saying pick your battles. Do you think a business manager is going to say Hmm, this system has 5 man years of work in it and is used by a lot of people ... Well let's not consider that because that's ridiculous. Anyone trying to use the technology will not use that argument as a reason not to use it. I'm just saying it's a possible reason for not wanting to develop something else. If this was a proprietary solution not accessible, and not extensible then an open solution would be great, but that's not the case with p2. I would argue it's more of a proprietary case for OBR given the constraints to participate in the forming and implementation of the specification. If you just wanted to point out that p2 should be mentioned as a competing technology in the proposal, I think you could have accomplished that in a more reasonable manner. Maybe. I'm not a dancer. Lastly, it is somewhat difficult for me to take community building lessons from someone who claims to have had an OSGi awakening and is willing to cull all of their own personal projects as a result, yet I can count on probably a couple fingers how many discussions you've instigated (or even responded to) regarding OSGi, OBR, or any topic in the Felix community in all the years it has existed. Heh. I _never_ claimed to be a an example of a good community builder. I wouldn't take any community building lessons from me. I write stuff, if you want to use it great. If you don't it's no skin off my back. That's the extent of my community building skill. On the OSGi front I probably wouldn't be involved in many discussion on the Felix list because I use Equinox. So I don't think that's overly odd. - richard On 4/5/09 2:11 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: 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
Re: Pulling in a branch of JSTemplate into Shindig
FYI SHINDIG-1007 provided the patch and was applied. Vincent 2009/4/6 Evan Gilbert uid...@google.com: [+gene...@incubator.apache.org] This sounds great, want to make this is OK before committing the patch. To summarize: - Shindig depends on 3 files from open source JsTemplates, ( http://code.google.com/p/google-jstemplate/, ASL 2.0). - We need to make Shindig-specific changes, and want to create a copy in the Shindig code base - Current plan is to create JIRA issue and check the radio box to grant license to ASF Is this sufficient? Are there more steps we need to take? Evan On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Vincent Siveton vincent.sive...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like related to SHINDIG-623. Since it is already an ASL code, I think you could just provide a patch in Jira and check the radio box to grant license to ASF. As Ian said, we will improve the README file. Cheers, Vincent 2009/4/2, Ian Boston i...@tfd.co.uk: I see that comments on have been made to provide A2 licenses where applicable, and it looks like the rest of the code is A2 licensed. Provided you as a CLA signitory have recorded permission from the copyright holder (google I assume) to re-assign the license, and we (Shindig) as a community are prepared to take on maintenance of the code, then there should be no problem in pulling this in. There contribution will need to me appropriately attributed in the NOTICE file. But I am a relative newcomer to Apache, and not a lawyer. Ian BTW, how is the speed of this DOM based lib ? I did a project recently where we had to use string parsing and compilation into native JS, as all the DOM based JS template languages crippled the browser. On 2 Apr 2009, at 15:32, Lev Epshteyn wrote: Guys, I need advice on how to best go about getting a branch of JSTemplate into the Shindig codebase. JSTemplate is a DOM-based template library currently used by the client-side OpenSocial template implementation. libhttp:// code.google.com/p/google-jstemplate/ As a result of some spec changes, I have had to modify this library to continue working for us - and these changes aren't likely to be integrated back into the trunk of JST because they are pretty specific to some decisions made by OpenSocial. Therefore, I would like to create a copy within the Shindig codebase and modify it as needed. I had initially (and naively) simply copied the files in as part of a patch (http://codereview.appspot.com/32041/show) but Evan has suggested that a more formal process may be in order. Please let me know what the best way to go about this is. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Opinion about new framework
Hi all, I’m developing a framework called Jeha. The main idea of it is to provide easy exception handling using annotations in methods and classes. I believe that the idea is simple, but powerful. The start guide and initial code of framework are here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203package_id=294931release_id=650572 I’d like to hear from incubator community if Jeha is valuable for a possible incubation. Please let me know your opinion. Thanks in advance, Andre - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Pulling in a branch of JSTemplate into Shindig
[+gene...@incubator.apache.org] This sounds great, want to make this is OK before committing the patch. To summarize: - Shindig depends on 3 files from open source JsTemplates, ( http://code.google.com/p/google-jstemplate/, ASL 2.0). - We need to make Shindig-specific changes, and want to create a copy in the Shindig code base - Current plan is to create JIRA issue and check the radio box to grant license to ASF Is this sufficient? Are there more steps we need to take? Evan On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Vincent Siveton vincent.sive...@gmail.comwrote: Sounds like related to SHINDIG-623. Since it is already an ASL code, I think you could just provide a patch in Jira and check the radio box to grant license to ASF. As Ian said, we will improve the README file. Cheers, Vincent 2009/4/2, Ian Boston i...@tfd.co.uk: I see that comments on have been made to provide A2 licenses where applicable, and it looks like the rest of the code is A2 licensed. Provided you as a CLA signitory have recorded permission from the copyright holder (google I assume) to re-assign the license, and we (Shindig) as a community are prepared to take on maintenance of the code, then there should be no problem in pulling this in. There contribution will need to me appropriately attributed in the NOTICE file. But I am a relative newcomer to Apache, and not a lawyer. Ian BTW, how is the speed of this DOM based lib ? I did a project recently where we had to use string parsing and compilation into native JS, as all the DOM based JS template languages crippled the browser. On 2 Apr 2009, at 15:32, Lev Epshteyn wrote: Guys, I need advice on how to best go about getting a branch of JSTemplate into the Shindig codebase. JSTemplate is a DOM-based template library currently used by the client-side OpenSocial template implementation. libhttp:// code.google.com/p/google-jstemplate/ As a result of some spec changes, I have had to modify this library to continue working for us - and these changes aren't likely to be integrated back into the trunk of JST because they are pretty specific to some decisions made by OpenSocial. Therefore, I would like to create a copy within the Shindig codebase and modify it as needed. I had initially (and naively) simply copied the files in as part of a patch (http://codereview.appspot.com/32041/show) but Evan has suggested that a more formal process may be in order. Please let me know what the best way to go about this is.
Re: Opinion about new framework
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Andre Dantas Rocha andre.dantas.ro...@uol.com.br wrote: Hi all, I’m developing a framework called Jeha. The main idea of it is to provide easy exception handling using annotations in methods and classes. I believe that the idea is simple, but powerful. The start guide and initial code of framework are here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203package_id=294931release_id=650572 I’d like to hear from incubator community if Jeha is valuable for a possible incubation. Ola Andre You probably want to start creating a proposal detailing the idea if you want detailed comments (see archive of this list for examples of proposals and the type of feedback/questions you might get), but in the mean time, you might want to get in touch with Douglas Leite, he is a Tuscany committer and a student at University of Campinas who is proposing a Google Summer of Code project around the same area of exceptions [1]... you guys could probably collaborate on this. [1] http://markmail.org/thread/4ta7humbznoi2lss -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
