incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Date Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:31:27 GMT
For things that come from ServiceMix, I think the story is really
different.   ServiceMix TLP charter is the following:  "an extensible
messaging bus for service integration, mediation and composition and its
related components".   So clearly, Karaf, as an enhanced OSGi runtime
distribution, does not really fit in ServiceMix.

However, the ASF has never prevented two projects to have overlapping
charters.  And the scope of Aries is much more narrow than Felix to avoid
becoming an umbrella project with lots of disjoint communities.


On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 15:03, Karl Pauls <karlpauls@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me point out one more time: Nobody is talking about Aries as a
> Felix "incubator" project. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec
> implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope.
>
> I'd be more then happy to see the rest of the proposal (namely, to
> explore how to build an enterprise component model on OSGi and the
> other non-spec related topics) become a reality by means of a new
> incubator project. Whether that ends-up as a felix sub-project or as a
> sub-project or TLP in the end we don't have to discuss right now.
>
> In regard to the other half of the proposal I do think you would be
> better off to develop them over at Felix and I'm sure we would be more
> then happy to support you and find solutions to any issues you might
> have (as we recently did with karaf). Not the end of the world if not
> but not what I would prefer nor see as the best solutions for neither
> Felix nor Aries.
>
> regards,
>
> Karl
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Guillaume Nodet<gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are a few things I don't understand well.   I thought the ASF over
> the
> > past years was trying to discourage umbrella projects.   I also thought
> that
> > overlap between the projects was indeed accepted (we already have
> multiple
> > JAX-WS or JAX-RS implementations in various TLPs / podlings).
> > That was rather clear in my mind, so I must have missed something.
> >
> > But let's try to be constructive ...
> >
> > Given the state and objectives of Aries (which means there's not much
> code
> > right now), I don' think it's wise to start splitting now between pure
> OSGi
> > specs implementations and other extensions, especially because some of
> the
> > possible specs mentionned are not yet spec, and Aries would become an
> input
> > / feedback source for creating those specifications.
> >
> > That said, we need to find a home for this proposal.   It seems Felix
> might
> > be a good place, so this basically means incubating Aries inside a Felix
> as
> > a subproject (I still think this is the role of the incubator, but let's
> put
> > that aside).
> > It means creating a subproject in Felix in a sandbox opened to all ASF
> > committers, and having a very low entry barrier for people that are not
> ASF
> > committers yet but want to contribute to Aries (as I said, it's difficult
> to
> > contribute patches when the code is inexistant at this point).   Another
> > thing to help creating a community around Aries would be to have the
> > possibility to have dedicated mailing lists and web site as a lot of TLP
> do
> > for their subprojects.  Plus, there are some code donations, so we also
> need
> > to take care of the IP clearance.  Binding votes would be those of the
> Felix
> > PMC of course.  Then, when the pseudo-incubation is completed, Aries
> could
> > either become a real Felix subproject, its own TLP, or be split.
> >
> > I really don't  see the value in that, as it seems I've just described
> what
> > the Incubator has been set up for afaik.  And as any new podling
> proposal,
> > any ASF committer is free to join at this point.  So there's really not
> much
> > difference between every people from felix joining aries podling.  But I
> > really don't want to fight for that and I'd personally be ok if the Felix
> > PMC wants to become an incubator for Aries.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:29, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman<niclas@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller<kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>... What would be the
> >> >> benefit for the Aries community of developing these spec
> implementations
> >> at
> >> >> Felix?
> >> >
> >> > Ideally, you have more people taking care of any issues. More
> >> > importantly, you need to think outside the project and ask "What would
> >> > be the benefit for ASF...?", and IMHO having a complete spec suite
> >> > from one place benefits ASF as a whole....
> >>
> >> Very much agree with that. Being able to say "OSGi spec
> >> implementations happen at Felix, and
> >> customizations/application-specific stuff/extensions etc. usually
> >> happen in other projects" leads to a clear picture for "customers" of
> >> Apache OSGi stuff (and BTW the incubation proposal forgot about Sling
> >> apparently - we might use Aries' stuff as well in there).
> >>
> >> I don't like the idea of having part of the OSGi specs scattered
> >> around several projects - as a general rule. Several modules are now
> >> at Felix that were initially developed by the communities of other
> >> projects (ServiceMix, Slng, ACE), and moved to Felix once recognized
> >> as being "of general interest to OSGi users" - I think that's a very
> >> good model both for ASF insiders and outsiders.
> >>
> >> Several projects in the history of the ASF have granted commit access
> >> to committers of other projects on parts of their codebase. That
> >> wouldn't be a new thing. Forrest committers, for example, have commit
> >> rights on Cocoon, but they're expected to ask before changing stuff in
> >> there, to make sure Cocoon folks know what's going on.
> >>
> >> That works well, IMHO, and maybe Felix could similarly open parts of
> >> their codebase to other OSGi-related projects, with the same
> >> convention of "just let us know before making changes in there" and
> >> "make sure you're following our dev list".
> >>
> >> I know such issues can be discussed during incubation, not necessarily
> >> before the podling is accepted, but the fact that (AFAIK) no contact
> >> was made with the Felix project before creating the Aries proposal is
> >> very disturbing - so IMHO we should rather clarify this before
> >> accepting the podling.
> >>
> >> Maybe simply saying "modules that implement OSGi specs, or that are of
> >> general interest to OSGi users, will be moved to the Felix project, as
> >> much as possible" in the Aries proposal would help. That should be
> >> true for any project doing OSGi at Apache anyway, and I think the
> >> other projects mentioned above are working like that, which is a Good
> >> Thing,
> >>
> >> I'm very happy to see Guillaume as a mentor for Aries, that will
> >> hopefully help in building bridges between Felix and Aries.
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > ------------------------
> > Open Source SOA
> > http://fusesource.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Pauls
> karlpauls@gmail.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

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