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: Implementation of unreleased spec and community
Date Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:23:46 GMT
On 1/18/17 14:06 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Let's take a clearer example, as I have a feeling I'm still not understood
> correctly.  My problem is definitely not the fact that there is an
> implementation based on an unreleased spec or RFC (as my email title seemed
> to indicate).
> If a committer comes and say : I'd like to implement rfc-xxx based on the
> public document (spec or rfc), that's very fine with me, because all
> committers have the same level of information and can get involved.   Fwiw,
> that's what usually happens and I haven't seen anything different in Felix
> so far.
> If someone comes and say: I'd like to work on some code which will
> eventually become the RI while writing the rfc within the OSGi alliance, I
> don't think that's fine, because what we have in this case is not an
> implementation of something, it's a prototype for designing the spec and
> only OSGi Alliance members who are actually working on the rfc can really
> change the api.
> Is that more clear now ?  Am I the only one thinking that if not all
> committers can work on the code, there's a real problem ?

This is what I assumed that you meant and I don't really see an issue 
with it. Yeah, it might be more painful than if there was a public 
document somewhere, but this is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg 
situation that will eventually clear itself up.

Of course, if you had someone purposely trying to keep people in the 
dark, then this might be an issue, but I don't think this is a real 
concern and certainly not something we've ever experienced. I have to 
assume that someone doing the implementation work here would want to 
discuss with other people and get input, otherwise why would they be 
doing the work here in the first place?

-> richard

> 2017-01-18 15:29 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartlett@gmail.com>:
>>> On 18 Jan 2017, at 12:36, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> This is pretty much my point. Why raise an issue with the “Whiteboard”
>> half of “JAX-RS Whiteboard” but not with the “JAX-RS” half? Why don’t your
>> arguments also apply to JCR specs, or IEEE or W3C specs?
>> Regards,
>> Neil
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>>> implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything
>> 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
>>>> what
>>>>>> the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to
>> provide
>>>>>> feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>>>> developed at the OSGi Alliance.  I find that very disturbing
>>>>>>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are
>>>> 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/

View raw message