felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Handling of provisional OSGi API?
Date Fri, 16 May 2014 17:59:42 GMT
Well, I pretty much disagree with the existing policy being good or nice, but I think I agree
with your proposal.

I think that there should be very different policy for the svn tree and for releases.  I don't
think it's a very good idea to have a release with a provisional osgi api, whether or not
it's had its packages shaded.  However if we decide we need to do this I think _either_ renaming
the packages _or_ marking the packages provisional should be sufficient, not both.

For the svn tree, I think it's fine to just copy the osgi draft source into some appropriate
location and build it as part of the project.  The svn tree is not for general consumption,
if you use it you are supposed to know what you are doing and you certainly aren't supposed
to rely on it for production without doing your own deternimation that it is entirely suitable,
since it comes with no assurances of anything from apache.  We just shouldn't release anything
in this state: either the spec gets released first, or we mark the spec packages provisional
or rename them.

I have the same problem with  the felix ds/rfc 190 work, with the new runtime and dto packages,
and realistically for me the options are either changing the policy, or keeping my work visible
on github until the spec is released.

I don't have time or interest to investigate, but it might be possible to use the maven shade
plugin to rename the packages in byte code.  I imagine we'd have to run bnd after this step.
 I don't know if the shading can be done to integration tests as well so the instructions
to bnd don't have to be duplicated with and without the mangled package names so we can create
an unshaded bundle for unshaded integration tests.

thanks for reminding me to think about this before I committed :-)

david jencks

On May 15, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziegeler@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> right now we have a policy for handling provisional OSGi API (API that is
> currently drafted in the OSGi expert groups but not final or officially
> released yet):
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/development/provisional-osgi-api-policy.html
> 
> While the policy is good and nice, it requires to rename the packages from
> an OSGi namespace to an Apache one for the reasons stated in the policy.
> However, this creates a burden for people using this stuff, e.g. when
> writing tests as these need to be refactored later on anyway.
> 
> The reference implementation of the new Http Service (RFC 189) will be done
> as part of Apache Felix and we would like to start working on this in the
> open. Therefore we need to commit the current version of the API draft
> somewhere. I think if we do this in the whiteboard section, it should be
> clear enough that the API is provisional and we don't need to rename the
> packages. We can also add all kinds of disclaimers/readmes etc.
> But before doing so, I would like to get the general feeling about this.
> 
> So, wdyt?
> 
> Thanks
> Carsten
> -- 
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org


Mime
View raw message