felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:36:01 GMT
Fwiw, I think Christian was referring to the JAX-RS WHITEBOARD, not the
JAX-RS spec itself.
That one is an RFC from the OSGi Alliance...  RFC-127 afaik.

2017-01-18 13:34 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartlett@gmail.com>:

> Christian, your example of JAX-RS Whiteboard is fascinating, because
> JAX-RS was designed by the Expert Groups of the JCP, not by the Apache
> community. The same is true of many of the JavaEE specifications
> implemented within Apache.
>
> So, Apache has always worked pragmatically to implement specifications
> emerging from external standards bodies. It seems odd therefore to single
> out OSGi.
>
> Neil
>
> > On 18 Jan 2017, at 11:25, Christian Schneider <chris@die-schneider.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Guillaume that the way the specs are defined is not fully
> compatible to the way apache projects are managed.
> > In apache the idea is that the design of a component is defined by the
> community.
> >
> > Like in jax-rs-whiteboard .. if it was a pure apache thing then changes
> in the interfaces would be proposed on the dev list and agreed on there.
> > As the interfaces are part of the spec this is out of direct reach for
> the aries community.
> >
> > On the other hand I understand that the final decision about the spec
> has to be at the OSGi alliance and even that only members may decide.
> > So I think this gap can not be fully solved but maybe we can improve it.
> >
> > So what I could imagine is this:
> >
> > - Changes on the spec should be immediately visible to the apache
> community. This could be done using a github repo where the source of the
> spec resides and an automated snapshot build. So all changes could be
> followed directly and the newest spec jars  would always be available.
> > - Protocols of the expert group meetings could be posted to the dev list
> >
> > Both improvements would shorten the feedback loop and give the apache
> community at least more visibility of the spec progress. The community
> could then also directly give feedback to the protocols as well as api
> changes on the dev list. So this would of course still not allow the apache
> community to drive the spec but I think it would be a good compromise.
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > On 18.01.2017 11:59, David Bosschaert wrote:
> >> Hi Guillaume,
> >>
> >> First of all, the OSGi Alliance is a very open standards development
> >> organization. Any organisation can join. RFPs and RFCs are developed in
> the
> >> open, specs are available for free and are free to be implemented by
> anyone.
> >>
> >> There is also an open feedback channel available where everyone can post
> >> feedback, described at https://github.com/osgi/design
> >>
> >> OSGi works very hard in defining specs that are portable and can be
> >> implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything of that
> >> sort.
> >>
> >> History has shown that spec implementations are really quite portable.
> >> Implementation bundles can be mixed from different sources and
> everything
> >> just works as long as you use the specced APIs.
> >>
> >> Every new spec that is being worked on in OSGi needs, besides the
> RFP/RFC
> >> and spec chapter, a Reference Implementation and a Conformance
> Testsuite.
> >> Over the past 10 years or so, Reference Implementations have primarily
> been
> >> implemented in open source. This has the benefit that everyone can see
> what
> >> the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to provide
> >> feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers have
> free
> >> access to the relevant CTs as well.
> >>
> >> I think this is all goodness. Or would you rather see that Reference
> >> Implementations are implemented in private?
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >> On 18 January 2017 at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities.
> >>>
> >>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic
> thing
> >>> for a project is that people can get involved.
> >>>
> >>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference
> implementation
> >>> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being
> >>> developed at the OSGi Alliance.  I find that very disturbing because
> >>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi
> Alliance
> >>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts ?
> >>> Guillaume Nodet
> >>>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christian Schneider
> > http://www.liquid-reality.de
> >
> > Open Source Architect
> > http://www.talend.com
> >
>
>


-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Red Hat, Open Source Integration

Email: gnodet@redhat.com
Web: http://fusesource.com
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message