incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Ace
Date Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:47:16 GMT
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jason van Zyl <jvanzyl@sonatype.com> wrote:
>
> On 5-Apr-09, at 2:46 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>
>> Hello Jason,
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2009, at 1:09 , Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>>> Equinox p2 was designed to replace the aging Update Manager in
>>>> Eclipse. It focusses on installing Eclipse-based applications from
>>>> scratch and updating them and can be extended to manage other types
>>>> of artifacts. If you look at the "agent" part, it is geared towards
>>>> desktop environments
>>>
>>> Not true.
>>
>>> Jeff McAffer's demo at EclipseCon is a case in point. He provisioned
>>> an EC2 node using p2. [...] Jeff is very much focused on server side
>>> provisioning as am I.
>>
>> Let me rephrase that, it's geared more towards desktop and server
>> environments, as compared to smaller (embedded, mobile) environments. That
>> was the point I was trying to make here.
>>
>>>> Note though, I'm no Equinox p2 expert. :)
>>
>>> Then why are you proposing this when you don't even know what p2 is
>>> capable of?
>>
>> We started working on this system when p2 did not even exist. I even
>> remember talking to Jeff in those days about our system, but they decided to
>> make their own, so you could equally well make this argument the other way
>> round.
>>
>
> I'll use the same story I used on Richard. I created a DI and runtime system
> 5 years ago. So what. Guice and Equinox have a massive user community,
> professional support is available for both and so I will cull the
> technologies I developed. I don't think it really matters so much who was
> first but who got to a production system first that is known and support by
> thousands of users.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't incubate projects that overlap
with an existing production system outside the ASF?

>>> It's just my opinion but anyone doing provisioning with OSGi has had
>>> their asses handed to them on a plate by the p2 guys.
>>
>> In my opinion, p2 is fine if you are already doing everything "the Eclipse
>> way" and are targetting desktops and servers. There are however other types
>> of systems that need provisioning, and Apache Ace tries to cater for those
>> too.
>>
>
> Again you haven't really even looked at p2. What is the "Eclipse way" ?
> You're going to make/keep another system entirely because it's the "Eclipse
> way" ? I've seen JBoss and Tomcat servers provisioned with p2 so I'm not
> sure what the "Eclipse way" means. I'll repeat again that p2 is not
> targeting desktops whatever aspects may appear most visible right now. I
> really don't think there is a system that couldn't be provisioned even with
> p2 in its current state. I have personally not found one yet.

I don't think anyone is attacking p2. If people like and use it:
great. I certainly think the proposed project should be able to
interoperate with p2 repositories seamlessly. It sure would be great
If you could suggest any improvements to the proposal in the area of
interoperability with p2.

With that out of the way, I do think there is room for another
provisioning solution out there. Granted, it might be that it just
doesn't have any added value over p2 and that people are going to
ignore it but I'd say this risk exists for all projects, no?

During the incubation, we will see whether the project is able to
attract enough users and contributors. The initial interest looks very
promising IMO.

regards,

Karl

>>> Oleg and I were trying to make something and after looking around at
>>> everything -- and we did look at OBR -- we decided that p2 was good
>>> enough and we would help improve that.
>>
>> OBR is a repository for components, augmented with metadata that describes
>> dependencies. As such it's not a provisioning system, so in my opinion you
>> should not compare it to p2.
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with competition but I think anyone doing OSGi
>>> provisioning is just going to look around in a year and find p2 has
>>> 95% of the market. It's a complicated problem and I think p2 is a
>>> solid base and be improved and adapted to support  things like OBR or
>>> anything else including non-OSGi systems.
>>
>> Nobody can look into the future, and since both p2 and Ace are indeed
>> software provisioning solutions, there will definitely be overlap in
>> features. There are also differences though. In the end, the users will
>> decide what they like best.
>>
>
> There's no doubt they will.
>
>> Greetings, Marcel
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.
> No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
> They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically
> dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of
> dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or
> goals are in doubt.
>
>  -- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Karl Pauls
karlpauls@gmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message