Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.211.200 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=E7a4jwMZMVlVweSewy5K2eAgGVJkkw0O/apOSKZ3xcaGehpZJxK7Sh/gyPum7xc3tx
         4kOUlrfvM6TUojnHEiJIGPAUvB4w1yYf7F8JH9+jPHqI8RkdmfRqT9Z732xSFEehGiGx
         2rnuovnRSh2orLXk2X9nV3aB+zsVuZxH+mISU=
Message-Id: <E5D46924-7F2C-4744-B51D-ADEDC05ECCE9@gmail.com>
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4A9D6337.1060503@ungoverned.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:53:08 -0400
References: <adbf02b10909010736y2ea39ff2o76634ac210e7f86a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <adbf02b10909010737p8cd5bb9jba1da662a2c63cb0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <adbf02b10909010738k57798cdbk7c4e5d5e4d22f0be@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A9D37C2.9060104@ungoverned.org>
	 <b23ecedc0909010845g5ee5d2bcnbceb3709fd76aabe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A9D4674.6040309@ungoverned.org>
	 <b23ecedc0909010914s76441dc8jebee7dd99f5e5b9d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <caf30e2a0909010958t451f4a4bnca4eb7f7b56d79ce@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A9D5F2D.3000403@ungoverned.org>
 <16d6c6200909011059t4893d55ax3db585857ec5126e@mail.gmail.com>
 <4A9D6337.1060503@ungoverned.org>


On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:

> On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S.  
>> Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>  wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Whether Aries becomes its
>> own TLP, or a sub-project of Felix or some other TLP, isn't relevant
>> until the project is ready to exit incubation. Why does it warrant
>> such apparently intense discussion before the project is even  
>> accepted
>>
>
> We are actually discussing something else. We are discussing the  
> scope of the proposal, which includes hosting OSGi standard service  
> implementations, which is part of Felix' scope.
>
> If we are developing standard OSGi services within Apache, then  
> Felix provides an enthusiastic community to do this and there is no  
> need to start another incubator project for such a purpose. On the  
> other hand, stuff like "a set of pluggable Java components enabling  
> an enterprise OSGi application programming model" makes perfect  
> sense to be incubated.

Thanks for the clarification... So, your issue is mainly with "It is a  
goal of the Aries project to provide a natural home for open source  
implementations of current and future OSGi EEG specifications..."?  
Personally, I tend to think of Felix in terms of OSGi Core Platform. I  
certainly hadn't expected it to be the source for all OSGi standard  
implementations from Apache -- not for implementations of Enterprise  
Expert Group specs, anyway. I'm sure there are flaws with my  
perceptions...

So, we have a group that is interested in working on an enterprise  
OSGi application programming model at Apache (including  
implementations of at least some EEG specifications). An incubator  
project would seem to be an excellent place for this work to start.  
Interested Felix community members would certainly be able to join  
this effort.

It then becomes a question of, assuming successful incubation, where  
does the community graduate to? TLP, Felix subproject(s), or  
elsewhere. All successful outcomes, IMO.

--kevan

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