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: http.jetty based on Jetty 6
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:32:47 GMT
It seems that some of these issues are arguments against Apache process, 
so I am not sure what to say about that.

Further, I am not really certain about what is being said here. This 
thread seems to imply that if we did "rm -rf framework" in our trunk 
directory, then it would be possible for our bundles to be seen as 
framework independent and good OSGi citizens. However, since one of our 
subprojects happens to be a framework implementation, then all of our 
subprojects are tainted and seen as "Felix-only"? Is that right?

If so, then why would anyone want to work on OSGi-related subprojects at 
Felix? By this perception, they would be ideologically limiting their 
audience. I would hope that this isn't the case or if it was it could be 
corrected.

I would think that if a Felix PMC member felt that we were not doing a 
good enough job promoting the use of our subprojects on other 
frameworks, that he would try to propose ways to remedy that situation, 
not encourage.

For example, perhaps it would be worthwhile for us to create some sort 
of standard template/table/graphic for each subproject documentation 
page to clearly inform users whether it is applicable to other 
frameworks and/or whether it has been tested on other frameworks. 
Further, I think we could go as far as setting up or documenting 
mechanisms that make it possible to automatically test our subprojects 
on other frameworks.

Clearly, not everything need be or can be developed at Felix, but the 
implication that we might as well accept that Felix bundles will only be 
used by Felix users seems awfully counter to all of the concepts for 
which OSGi stands.

-> richard

Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> Beside Niclas points there are some additional facts related to OPS4J:
> * it's open participation meaning that virtually anybody can
> contribute. No need for patches.
> * release process. we tend to release often.
>
> Alin
>
> On Jan 13, 2008 1:05 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>   
>> On Thursday 10 January 2008 23:09, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>     
>>> There is no attempt by any of our sub-projects to specifically tie
>>> themselves to the Felix framework as far as I am aware. I think we want
>>> all of our work to be interoperable where possible, so I think this is a
>>> non-issue.
>>>       
>> Yes, that is a good goal and I salute that. In general, we are more often than
>> not met with positive comments when trying to resolve cross-platform issues.
>>
>> But, I was thinking more "mentality-wise". People who use KF, first go and
>> check the KF's set of bundles, the Equinox-based folks will search the
>> Eclipse site first... and so on.
>> Why is that? Because the KF developed bundles are tested on KF only, the
>> Eclipse stuff is practically only tested on Equinox and so forth. This sends
>> the signal that it is a "safer bet" to choose from within the same community.
>> It's all in our heads!
>>
>> At OPS4J we *try* to ensure that everything gets tested on all the frameworks
>> we claim to support. And with Pax Runner, we try to force all the frameworks
>> into a configuration that is as close to each other as possible...
>>
>> End of the day, I think we want to remain "un-associated" with a framework,
>> and a strong cross-framework interoperability focus. I think it will benefit
>> us all.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>>
>> I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
>> I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
>> I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
>>
>>     

Mime
View raw message