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 david_jencks@yahoo.com
 designates 98.138.91.108 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Handling of provisional OSGi API?
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKkCf4r4T-ZJ089dTL5eJh1How53AUR3LFiy6r0xui=exGVVAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:59:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21176F9C-9657-4B1C-B17D-997A951E59FE@yahoo.com>
References: 
 <CAKkCf4r4T-ZJ089dTL5eJh1How53AUR3LFiy6r0xui=exGVVAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@felix.apache.org

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,
>=20
> 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-pol=
icy.html
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> So, wdyt?
>=20
> Thanks
> Carsten
> --=20
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org