incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accept Aries proposal for incubation
Date Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:10:01 GMT
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> The real goal as it has
> been said an OSGi Enterprise Programming Model, and the comparison
> that has been made with Geronimo is not bad.

Uhhhh... No.

"The aim of the project is to produce a large and healthy community of
J2EE developers tasked with the development of an open source,
certified J2EE server..."

IMHO, that is above and beyond what I am looking for. In fact, very
clear scope "certified J2EE server".


So instead of being critical, let me try and show with words what I
see the difference;

> Just keep the following sentences in mind:  "The Aries project will
> deliver a set of pluggable Java components enabling an enterprise OSGi
> application programming model.

"The Aries project will define and develop an OSGi programming model,
that enables an inter-operable component eco-system for enterprise
OSGi applications (or servers)..." ??

And in order to do so, it is natural that reference components are
developed, but leave that out as a goal in itself.
If it is "conversion of the well-used J2EE specifications into
OSGi-enabled alternatives", i.e. "JNDI for OSGi", "JPA for OSGi" and
so on, then spell that out.
If it IS a goal to become a large component registry for "anything
OSGI enterprisey" then my -1 vote will stand.

> This includes implementations and
> extensions of application-focused specifications defined by the OSGi
> Alliance Enterprise Expert Group (EEG) and an assembly format for
> multi-bundle applications, for deployment to a variety of OSGi based
> runtimes."

And the above part is Ok.


> The first sentence is the key one.

And that is the one that I don't like ;-) especially when looking at
the filler text later.

> It is what happened in other TLPs: Camel was first developed inside
> ActiveMQ but moved to TLP because it did not really fit in ActiveMQ.
> Felix Karaf has originally been developed inside ServiceMix for its
> use, but given it was not really tied to ServiceMix, nor in the real
> scope of the project, it has been moved as a Felix subproject.

Well, IMHO, the wider the charter is written, the more unclear it
becomes whether something belongs there or not. For instance, I think
Felix is too encompassing and there is no 'natural' "move this out"
threshold. Although that is a separate problem, I would like to avoid
such scenarios in the future.


Cheers
-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java

I  live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I  work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug

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


Mime
View raw message