incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:27:06 GMT
+1 from me as well. Just to reiterate one more point, As with any
other podling, the destination of this podling is determined *when* we
graduate. If there is enough "help/guidance/participation" from folks
on dev@felix to the podling, then the podling will naturally gravitate
towards becoming a subproject of felix.

thanks,
dims

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Kulp<dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri September 4 2009 9:27:23 am Graham Charters wrote:
>> Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the
>> suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix.  I don't
>> see this approach being taken for other specification organizations
>> (JCP, OASIS, etc.) and I think that is to the benefit of Apache.  For
>> example, whilst a goal of Geronimo is JEE compliance it does not host
>> all the implementations of the JEE specifications.  Having OpenEJB,
>> OpenJPA, Tomcat, etc as separate projects allows them to evolve
>> independent communities, with cross-pollination.  The domains,
>> technologies and skills required to cover the entirety of JEE are
>> diverse and the same is true for OSGi.  To put these under one project
>> would lead to sub-groups of different interests under one disjoint
>> umbrella community.
>
> +1
>
> Geronimo is a perfect example.   Couldn't have said it better myself.   The
> community of the "experts" in the technology area should be the ones
> implementing those specs as part of their community.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> I also worry about the practicalities of saying that all OSGi spec
>> implementations belong in Felix.  This is a moving target, both within
>> each specification, where extensions may be created and then
>> standardized and also at the spec level, where new concepts are
>> created and then standardized.  Must these then move under the Felix
>> umbrella, which will undoubtedly create a lot of churn for users of,
>> and contributors to, Aries?
>>
>> Thinking about the problem the way JEE is handled makes me wonder if
>> Felix could pull in spec implementations from Aries (and have
>> committers on Aries) and therefore still contribute to and provide the
>> distribution of the entire OSGi Service Platform.  Maybe this could be
>> done through Felix hosting a bundle repository (Felix commons?)?
>> Consumers of Felix would be able to get the OSGi Service Platform and
>> consumers of Aries would get the enterprise OSGi application portions.
>>
>> I'd like to emphasize that the desire to be separate from Felix is in
>> no way a criticism of that project.  I have a huge amount of respect
>> for what Richard et al continue to achieve and having experienced
>> first-hand the value the combination of Felix and Equinox bring to the
>> OSGi standards, I sincerely believe that OSGi is far stronger as a
>> result.
>>
>> The desire to remain separate is based purely on the belief that this
>> is the approach which will best serve the goals of evolving an
>> enterprise OSGi application programming model, and a community around
>> its definition.  This rationale is also the reason why Geronimo was
>> not suggested (an equally valid choice given the majority of the
>> Enterprise OSGi specifications leverage JEE technologies).  I guess
>> what I don't understand is why the Incubator would not prove or
>> disprove this belief, without making a prior decision?
>>
>> Regards, Graham.
>>
>> 2009/9/4 Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>:
>> > As a point of note, not all OSGi spec implementations live in Felix even
>> > at Apache today.   The Remote Services/Distributed OSGi reference
>> > implementation is a sub project of CXF.     I think Tuscany has an
>> > implementation as well.
>> >
>> > So far, there hasn't been any discussion about moving those into Felix.
>> >  Your argument below makes it sound like they should be.
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > On Thu September 3 2009 1:33:04 pm Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> >> There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am aware
>> >> and I certainly didn't know about it in advance.
>> >>
>> >> And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original
>> >> criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix".
>> >>
>> >> I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should go into Felix, I
>> >> too think it should have its own identity. I was always only ever
>> >> referring to the independent OSGi spec implementations. I was arguing
>> >> that Felix is a good place to work on them, since it is part of what it
>> >> is trying to achieve.
>> >>
>> >> Further, I don't really understand the implication that somehow the
>> >> burden is now on the Felix community to go and contribute to Aries on
>> >> OSGi spec implementations just because of this proposal, when there was
>> >> no attempt to work with the Felix community on creating OSGi spec
>> >> implementations in the first.
>> >>
>> >> The only conclusions I see being drawn by people who have invested very
>> >> little in Felix is that we should dismantle the Felix charter so that we
>> >> can accommodate the fact that some people don't want to play with us.
>> >>
>> >> At that rate, I stand by my previous "vote" and otherwise people can do
>> >> whatever they want in Aries.
>> >>
>> >> -> richard
>> >>
>> >> On 9/3/09 13:23, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> >> > Kevan,
>> >> >
>> >> > Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here?
I
>> >> > got the impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising...
If
>> >> > I am wrong, what was the meat of such?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm also less happy with the rhetoric here repeated over and over,
>> >> > seemingly uninterested in discussion of reaching a solution everyone
>> >> > can accept. (From both camps, btw)
>> >> >
>> >> > -- Niclas
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sep 4, 2009 12:53 AM, "Kevan Miller"<kevan.miller@gmail.com>
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:>  On Thu, Sep
3,
>> >> > 2009 at 3:19 AM, William A. Ro...
>> >> > Totally agree. Had certainly hoped that Felix committers would be
>> >> > interested in joining...
>> >> >
>> >> > --kevan
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: gene...
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Kulp
>> > dkulp@apache.org
>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com

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


Mime
View raw message