Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 88421 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2010 19:11:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 17 Sep 2010 19:11:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 73599 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2010 19:11:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-felix-dev-archive@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 73444 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2010 19:11:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@felix.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@felix.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@felix.apache.org Received: (qmail 73436 invoked by uid 99); 17 Sep 2010 19:11:33 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:11:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of heavy@ungoverned.org designates 67.222.54.6 as permitted sender) Received: from [67.222.54.6] (HELO cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com) (67.222.54.6) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:11:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 21793 invoked by uid 0); 17 Sep 2010 19:11:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO host118.hostmonster.com) (74.220.207.118) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2010 19:11:05 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=ungoverned.org; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=BdCT9HDzTlai0R6kuJurC4m3Q3+3A93C5lBh43GIX9/qXTVbG6rORRc1uTuB+Gw+kfDOm/i4URKlv4Xf4NcWqkbm4b+mZsn3Ba5fFgf8O6jvw+hj7aBbENKWlYVvjqXi; Received: from [148.87.13.7] (helo=heavyweight.local) by host118.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OwgKv-0000Ul-FN for dev@felix.apache.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:11:05 -0600 Message-ID: <4C93BD48.2080006@ungoverned.org> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:11:04 -0700 From: "Richard S. Hall" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@felix.apache.org Subject: Re: Handling of provisional OSGi API References: <4C9398BF.1040700@ungoverned.org> <4DAB06BA-C229-4525-8082-8D3D46F2E002@luminis.nl> In-Reply-To: <4DAB06BA-C229-4525-8082-8D3D46F2E002@luminis.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1027:host118.hostmonster.com:ungovern:ungoverned.org} {sentby:smtp auth 148.87.13.7 authed with heavy@ungoverned.org} On 9/17/10 11:36, Marcel Offermans wrote: > On 17 Sep 2010, at 18:35 , Richard S. Hall wrote: > >> From my point of view, approach (1) might not be awesome, but it results in a simpler process than (2). So, I'd recommend (1). If the majority prefers (2), then we can do that (although I think we'll have to run the decision by the board first). > I prefer (1) too. > > I could see us combine (1) with (2), releasing implementations with both our own APIs which gives us the freedom to experiment with a new API whilst still "supporting what's provided by public releases of draft specs. However, this doesn't avoid the IP grey of releasing "unofficial" APIs in our "official" releases. Effectively, option (2) is a hybrid approach, since we couldn't make modifications in the provisional API unless it were available in a public spec snapshot, so any modifications would have to be done in felix package namespace. Which sort of makes (2) the worst of both worlds. -> richard > In the end, we are an open source project, so we should stick to what's available out in the open. > > Greetings, Marcel >