Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mcculls@gmail.com designates
 209.85.128.191 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=dXSOQT/GBWVbTBG7uJUgE5Ir2Upbfg/Cn3P8Vvofzhhp4ZKaGb117QcxZ+PgqYghhsVbMzftLIraUePBbbZbzlj14blym3FNp/Uj5fKlaaElpTGn8aNhpjk2i0GXQEz4h35+JB2q67QO7K/jfWE6cqyADmirUNgu1b4+wS14g7A=
Message-ID: <81f0d9c0709202030i33d436des1b2df0096c3b4943@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:30:01 +0800
From: "Stuart McCulloch" <stuart.mcculloch@jayway.net>
Sender: mcculls@gmail.com
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Plugins and wrappers (Was: Re: Felix Coding Style)
In-Reply-To: <46F2D2E7.7020005@ungoverned.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_32770_18108980.1190345401456"
References: <46F2B1AD.9040000@interfree.it>
	 <DA245A05-F6A2-40C3-8223-6FAE020E7224@luminis.nl>
	 <46F2CC0D.4000702@ungoverned.org>
	 <41040954-5A7B-4AE5-B477-26C9C9856917@luminis.nl>
	 <46F2D2E7.7020005@ungoverned.org>

------=_Part_32770_18108980.1190345401456
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 21/09/2007, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2007, at 21:37 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
> >
> >
> >> For me, I am not so sure about this one. I am not sure if makes
> >> sense, for example, for us to donate the bundle plugin to Maven,
> >> since the area of expertise around OSGi is in Felix, so if people
> >> have questions about stuff they will likely want answers from us, not
> >> from Maven guys. However, if Maven started to become much more
> >> OSGi-centered, then my position on this could change.
> >
> >> From my point of view, it makes sense that we (i.e., Felix community)
> >> develop tools that make it easier for people to use Felix (e.g.,
> >> bundleplugin). The fact that bundleplugin uses Maven is just an
> >> implementation issue. For example, mangen does a similar job as
> >> bundleplugin, but it is not based on maven, so what would we do with
> >> that? Of course, we wouldn't do anything with it. The point is that
> >> we are making tools to help people use Felix and these tools should
> >> be part of the Felix project, no matter what technology they are
> >> implemented on top of.
> >
> > That's another way to look at things. Another approach could be to not
> > only donate the code to other projects, but (as a figure of speech)
> > donate the developer(s) too and have them maintain the code in another
> > project.
>
> To me, this would just dilute the expertise in the Felix community and
> would require that users know where to ask their OSGi questions, rather
> than just coming to Felix for all of their OSGi questions.


another benefit of keeping such tools/plugins at Felix is that people may
drop by looking for a plugin and find out about the framework - if all the
tools were on other sites they could end up sticking with Equinox ;)

> Then again, it also depends on the scope of the Felix project. Do we
> > only implement the core framework? Or core plus compendium? Or that
> > plus other useful bundles? Or even including development utilities and
> > plugins? A lot of what we do is not bound to the framework anyway, but
> > can be used in any OSGi framework.
>
> Well, I am pretty sure the proposal said that we will try to do the
> entire spec (core + compendium), plus try to advance OSGi technology
> with our own ideas and projects too. So, the scope is actually quite
> large. :-)
>
> -> richard
>
>
> >
> > Greetings, Marcel
> >
>


-- 
Cheers, Stuart

------=_Part_32770_18108980.1190345401456--