felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Felix OSGi R4 specification compliance
Date Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:14:01 GMT
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Indeed!  How do we look in terms of a roadmap for being R4 compliant? 
> Do we have a plan or date in mind?

I tend not to base the roadmap on compliance, since this is not 
necessarily the most important goal. I think the roadmap should be based 
on releases and releases should have certain features assigned to them.

Having said that, R4 compliance can mean three different things:

   1. Mandatory feature compliance,
   2. Mandatory feature plus some optional features compliance, or
   3. Complete compliance.

We should be able to justifiably claim (1) fairly soon, given the 
precise list of issues that we need to address on the TCK result page. 
However, the TCK does not really give us this type of rating as far as I 
can tell, so (1) cannot be an official compliance statement. The plans 
for achieving some of (2) are a little cloudy, but I think we will make 
progress on some over the next month, but I wouldn't want them to hold 
up any release. The two main issues that keep us from being (2) are 
require-bundle and bundle fragments. I will be starting require-bundle 
shortly, but have no time frame since I will have to find the time to do it.

I believe that other OSGi implementations qualify for (2), since I am 
not aware of any that implement all optional features. Perhaps ProSyst 
is (3), but I do not know for sure.

-> richard

Mime
View raw message