Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:53:12 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Graham Charters <gcharters@googlemail.com>
References: <adbf02b10909010736y2ea39ff2o76634ac210e7f86a@mail.gmail.com>
 <200909040905.42003.dkulp@apache.org>
 <345578340909040627o4039f224j4f4558b93734bfcd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <345578340909040627o4039f224j4f4558b93734bfcd@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200909040953.12989.dkulp@apache.org>

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