Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
On 9/5/09 13:36, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: I will try to keep this short. The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of the compendium spec. Apache Felix was incubated to build a community at Apache around implementing the OSGi specs. Now we are being told that this mission is too tainted because we implement the framework spec, which is part of the core spec. I find this unfathomable given the nature of OSGi and the efforts to which the Felix community goes to be good OSGi citizens...we even allow for competing implementations within our community. It is also particularly odd, since the Equinox and Knopflerfish communities are in the same situation, implementing both core and compendium specs with their frameworks largely synonymous with their project name. I am not naive enough to expect this discussion to change much, since I imagine there has already been a fair amount of political calculation around this proposal, otherwise the Felix community in general would have been engaged earlier. So, here's my vote: * -1 for the portion of the proposal creating yet another community for implementing OSGi specs at Apache since the Felix community would happily welcome more contribution (just like recently occurred with ServiceMix members being accepted as Felix committers and PMC members for the Karaf subproject) Voting against a bunch of people forming a new community here at the ASF is v.disappointing and goes against what IMO the ASF is all about. It is also very disappointing to have my position mischaracterized, since I have been pretty consistent: I support the creation of a new community around an EE component model for OSGi and OSGi specs dependent upon this technology; however, I believe the Felix project is the best choice to work on independent OSGi specs since we have been doing it for years and it would guarantee cross-project collaboration. If you find this position disappointing, then I am not sure what to say. On the other hand, if you just disagree with it, that's fine, since I disagree too. And it is my understanding that this is the forum to discuss disagreements about project proposals. One thing we can all agree on, is this thread is rather tiresome, so let's move on. -> richard If the Felix community wants to get involved with their efforts then great, if not then don't try to block what they want to do. As others have said there are various options for graduation, but I think you've made Felix less rather than more likely by your antagonism to this proposal. I'm +1 to this proposal and hoping Felix members with shared interests get involved. Niall * +1 for the rest of the proposal to explore how to build an enterprise component model on OSGi and the other non-spec related topics. -> richard On 9/1/09 22:53, Kevan Miller wrote: On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Whether Aries becomes its own TLP, or a sub-project of Felix or some other TLP, isn't relevant until the project is ready to exit incubation. Why does it warrant such apparently intense discussion before the project is even accepted We are actually discussing something else. We are discussing the scope of the proposal, which includes hosting OSGi standard service implementations, which is part of Felix' scope. If we are developing standard OSGi services within Apache, then Felix provides an enthusiastic community to do this and there is no need to start another incubator project for such a purpose. On the other hand, stuff like "a set of pluggable Java components enabling an enterprise OSGi application programming model" makes perfect sense to be incubated. Thanks for the clarification... So, your issue is mainly with "It is a goal of the Aries project to provide a natural home for open source implementations of current and future OSGi EEG specifications..."? Personally, I tend to think of Felix in terms of OSGi Core Platform. I certainly hadn't expected it to be the source for all OSGi standard implementations from Apache -- not for implementations of Enterprise Expert Group specs, anyway. I'm sure there are flaws with my perceptions... So, we have a group that is interested in working on an enterprise OSGi application programming model at Apache (including implementations of at least some EEG specifications). An incubator project would seem to be an excellent place for this work to start. Interested Felix community members would certainly be able to join this effort. It then becomes a question of, assuming successful incubation, where does the community graduate to?
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
2009/9/5 Davanum Srinivas > One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not being > able or willing to participate in a new podling? (If the folks presenting > this proposal do wish to start off as a podling) > Personally speaking I'd be willing to help out where possible regardless of where it starts off. I doubt I'm experienced enough in the Apache Way to be a mentor, but having been on the OSGi Enterprise Expert Group in the past I am interested in seeing solutions in this space. -- Cheers, Stuart thanks, > dims
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > I will try to keep this short. > > The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The > EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of > the compendium spec. Apache Felix was incubated to build a community at > Apache around implementing the OSGi specs. > > Now we are being told that this mission is too tainted because we implement > the framework spec, which is part of the core spec. I find this unfathomable > given the nature of OSGi and the efforts to which the Felix community goes > to be good OSGi citizens...we even allow for competing implementations > within our community. > > It is also particularly odd, since the Equinox and Knopflerfish communities > are in the same situation, implementing both core and compendium specs with > their frameworks largely synonymous with their project name. > > I am not naive enough to expect this discussion to change much, since I > imagine there has already been a fair amount of political calculation around > this proposal, otherwise the Felix community in general would have been > engaged earlier. > > So, here's my vote: > > * -1 for the portion of the proposal creating yet another community > for implementing OSGi specs at Apache since the Felix community > would happily welcome more contribution (just like recently > occurred with ServiceMix members being accepted as Felix > committers and PMC members for the Karaf subproject) Voting against a bunch of people forming a new community here at the ASF is v.disappointing and goes against what IMO the ASF is all about. If the Felix community wants to get involved with their efforts then great, if not then don't try to block what they want to do. As others have said there are various options for graduation, but I think you've made Felix less rather than more likely by your antagonism to this proposal. I'm +1 to this proposal and hoping Felix members with shared interests get involved. Niall > * +1 for the rest of the proposal to explore how to build an > enterprise component model on OSGi and the other non-spec related > topics. > > -> richard > > > On 9/1/09 22:53, Kevan Miller wrote: >> >> On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >>> On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Whether Aries becomes its own TLP, or a sub-project of Felix or some other TLP, isn't relevant until the project is ready to exit incubation. Why does it warrant such apparently intense discussion before the project is even accepted >>> >>> We are actually discussing something else. We are discussing the scope of >>> the proposal, which includes hosting OSGi standard service implementations, >>> which is part of Felix' scope. >>> >>> If we are developing standard OSGi services within Apache, then Felix >>> provides an enthusiastic community to do this and there is no need to start >>> another incubator project for such a purpose. On the other hand, stuff like >>> "a set of pluggable Java components enabling an enterprise OSGi application >>> programming model" makes perfect sense to be incubated. >> >> Thanks for the clarification... So, your issue is mainly with "It is a >> goal of the Aries project to provide a natural home for open source >> implementations of current and future OSGi EEG specifications..."? >> Personally, I tend to think of Felix in terms of OSGi Core Platform. I >> certainly hadn't expected it to be the source for all OSGi standard >> implementations from Apache -- not for implementations of Enterprise Expert >> Group specs, anyway. I'm sure there are flaws with my perceptions... >> >> So, we have a group that is interested in working on an enterprise OSGi >> application programming model at Apache (including implementations of at >> least some EEG specifications). An incubator project would seem to be an >> excellent place for this work to start. Interested Felix community members >> would certainly be able to join this effort. >> >> It then becomes a question of, assuming successful incubation, where does >> the community graduate to? TLP, Felix subproject(s), or elsewhere. All >> successful outcomes, IMO. >> >> --kevan >> >> - >> 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Karl, Please don't get me wrong. Felix is choice for an excellent *destination* TLP. The Incubator PMC itself was setup to take away the responsibility for training incoming folks from existing TLP(s). So my gut feeling is that we should allow the incubation process to go on and decide on destination and scope once the project is ready to graduate. I am sure the folks on the proposal would love to get any and every help they can get to graduate as well as on the technical front. Please do continue to provide help and guidance. thanks, dims On 09/05/2009 10:29 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Karl, There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out earlier in the thread. I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an existing TLP just because of scope. For all you know by the time they get out of the incubator their scope may change a bit (or more). I'm sorry if it looked like I wanted to shoe horn anything into felix. That wasn't my goal as for me it was a question of where I would like it to happen and as I said earlier already, not the end of the world if not. regards, Karl thanks, dims On 09/05/2009 04:31 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: The question is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be done at felix - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Karl, > > There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out > earlier in the thread. > > > I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an > existing TLP just because of scope. For all you know by the time they get > out of the incubator their scope may change a bit (or more). I'm sorry if it looked like I wanted to shoe horn anything into felix. That wasn't my goal as for me it was a question of where I would like it to happen and as I said earlier already, not the end of the world if not. regards, Karl > thanks, > dims > > On 09/05/2009 04:31 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: >> >> The question >> is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the >> part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec >> implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be >> done at felix > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Karl Pauls wrote: > Where in the above "but educating incoming people via contributions > and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut" do you > find anything that would imply that the idea is to just accept a large > number of people into a TLP? Not sure what got you off, but if you want trial; Incubator's Evidence A; 9 people on the roster are not ASF folks. Incubator's Evidence B; Someone said that commit rights are needed for practical reasons. Incubator's Evidence C; Richard is contesting Dims' question "Why should we bypass the Incubator?" from the "Choices List", with a motivation that this can happen at Felix. I leave it to the jury to draw the conclusion and not repeat myself. > I think that we at Felix never did just > vote in people on the basis "they will create...". Sometimes we do > accept people new to the ASF on the basis "they donated..." but only > if we are talking about individual (i.e., 1 or 2) contributors which > either have been around for a while or had somebody on the PMC who > did speak up for them personally. I am not referring to the past... >> Hence, the group's decision to come to Incubator is a correct one. > > And nobody has been questioning that as far as I can see. > This is different from saying that the group's > decision to come to Incubator is an incorrect one... I said it was a correct one! >> Where it graduates to is a different story, and I can leave that >> question for later. And the Felix community is encouraged to follow >> and participate the Aries effort. > > As I'm sure at least some if not all of us will. The has never been a > question either imo. The question in this regard was and is purely to > what extend Felix people interested in the OSGi EE spec > implementations only have to get involved in the (more general) Aries > project and how quickly OSGi EE spec implementations can be released > as none incubator artifacts. Isn't it very simple? Work with the people over the year or two the Incubation is bound to take, and influence them to understand what you think is the best direction. Put that good Felix vibes in place and make parts of the project to naturally graduate to Felix. > And one more time (just in case it was missed earlier): let me point > out that nobody is talking about Aries as a Felix "incubator" project > nor (at least at this point in time) about a possible subproject of > Felix after graduation. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec > implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope. Well, Felix is free to implement whatever specifications it wants. The Incubator couldn't care less. So the issue is bigger than that. It is about community. Felix want to 'adopt' people who wants to work on these specs, and such 'adoption' may become an Incubator issue if it is "as is the case" a whole bunch of people with ASF experience. If you contest that let's say Apache Geronimo or Apache Cocoon are not "allowed" to implement OSGi specs and that those efforts are the "monopoly" of Felix, then you are on thin ice, as that is definitely against the spirit of ASF. You can only influence them to move their effort to Felix, but it is not a given. Unfortunately, the Felix community has been coming on quite strongly and antagonistic, so there is a lot of social skills required to mend that, but given the time available, I don't see a real problem. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Richard, #2 - "Finished impls could quickly be released as non-incubator artifacts." is also something that i am not comfortable with, at least until the new committers get off the ground, attract a user community and show that they are able to follow the ASF way. Ideally my hope is that d...@felix folks should guide the community being formed within the incubation podling process. If we can get anyone interested join in as a mentor and/or committer that would be wonderful. thanks, dims On 09/04/2009 06:04 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 9/4/09 16:49, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Richard, I see your viewpoint better now. Thanks. One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not being able or willing to participate in a new podling? (If the folks presenting this proposal do wish to start off as a podling) Dims, since I don't speak for all Felix community members, I can't really answer that question. I imagine that interested parties would contribute, but certainly a benefit of at least doing any independent OSGi spec impls at Felix is you will automatically get the oversight of people who have been doing it for years, if not their contribution. The separation could possibly make life simpler too for those willing to help, since: 1. People interested only in the OSGi spec impls do not necessarily have to be involved on Aries mailing lists that will likely incorporate a lot of discussion about the Aries component model and related content. 2. Finished impls could quickly be released as non-incubator artifacts. -> richard thanks, dims On 09/04/2009 04:31 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Richard, On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: So, no, I am not saying "everything should", but in general, it would be nice if the spec impls started there since we have a community of OSGi users and OSGi experts who are very active and receptive, many of whom also work in the EE space. Will the people mentioned not participate if Aries is a separate podling to start with? After all destination PMC can be determined during graduation process. Also the incubation process is to show new incoming team how Apache works etc..is that better done as a podling or as a felix sub project? If we continue the same thought process, will there every be any incubator podling with for any OSGi related activity? Yes, and I mentioned this, but that seems to get lost somehow. In short, it makes sense for spec impls tied to the Aries component model (for example), to be hosted there, but there is little need to create another project to incubate generic OSGi spec impls, since the Felix community was set up for that. The reality is, most OSGi specs are not huge projects so we likely wouldn't want TLPs for all of them, but nothing stops a subproject started at Felix from going TLP if it takes on a life of its own. Choices are 1) Podling -> TLP 2) Podling -> Felix Sub project 3) Podling -> Felix Sub project -> TLP 4) Felix Sub project 5) Felix Sub project -> TLP The first 3 effectively uses incubator process(es) to educate the incoming folks and provides a strong grounding in ASF-land (at least that is what the intention is :) So, why should we bypass incubator? Again, there was already a project incubated to educate incoming folks on how to create open source OSGi spec impls at Apache, so why do we need to repeat that process? Your phrasing of this question implies we are trying to somehow skirt the Apache way, but educating incoming people via contributions and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut. -> richard thanks, dims - 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 - 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
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Karl, There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out earlier in the thread. I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an existing TLP just because of scope. For all you know by the time they get out of the incubator their scope may change a bit (or more). thanks, dims On 09/05/2009 04:31 AM, Karl Pauls wrote: The question is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be done at felix - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >> On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >>> Choices are >>> >>> 1) Podling -> TLP >>> 2) Podling -> Felix Sub project >>> 3) Podling -> Felix Sub project -> TLP >>> 4) Felix Sub project >>> 5) Felix Sub project -> TLP >>> >>> So, why should we bypass incubator? > > No, AFAIK, that is not an option when a large bulk of the incoming > community is new to ASF. > >> Again, there was already a project incubated to educate incoming folks on >> how to create open source OSGi spec impls at Apache, so why do we need to >> repeat that process? >> >> Your phrasing of this question implies we are trying to somehow skirt the >> Apache way, but educating incoming people via contributions and meritocracy >> to an existing project is not some shortcut. > > Yes, if you are accepting a large number of people into a TLP on the > basis "they will create..." or "they donated...", then that PMC is > "skirting the Apache way". Where in the above "but educating incoming people via contributions and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut" do you find anything that would imply that the idea is to just accept a large number of people into a TLP? I think that we at Felix never did just vote in people on the basis "they will create...". Sometimes we do accept people new to the ASF on the basis "they donated..." but only if we are talking about individual (i.e., 1 or 2) contributors which either have been around for a while or had somebody on the PMC who did speak up for them personally. > My stance has been that if a code donation > include 1 or 2 new people, then that can be handled that way, but 9 > people on that basis will/should probably not fly. Considering the > large number of ASF members and committers on the rooster, this is > perhaps a border case, but since it is said that "not much code > exist", then I also suspect that the rooster is 'rigged' with people > in the organization that has a general interest and strong ASF > affilliation and that the non-ASFers are those who are expected to do > most of the work. That still wouldn't prevent them from contributing to other projects as you are probably well aware. > Hence, the group's decision to come to Incubator is a correct one. And nobody has been questioning that as far as I can see. The question is about the scope and goals of Aries and more specifically about the part where it is about being an umbrella for OSGi EE spec implementations where it has been argued that this could/should be done at felix while the more general part of building an enterprise component model on top of OSGi could/should very well be a new incubator project. This is different from saying that the group's decision to come to Incubator is an incorrect one... > Where it graduates to is a different story, and I can leave that > question for later. And the Felix community is encouraged to follow > and participate the Aries effort. As I'm sure at least some if not all of us will. The has never been a question either imo. The question in this regard was and is purely to what extend Felix people interested in the OSGi EE spec implementations only have to get involved in the (more general) Aries project and how quickly OSGi EE spec implementations can be released as none incubator artifacts. And one more time (just in case it was missed earlier): let me point out that nobody is talking about Aries as a Felix "incubator" project nor (at least at this point in time) about a possible subproject of Felix after graduation. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope. regards, Karl > I think this discussion is more or less over. > > Unless it was missed earlier; My +1 for incubation. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
