Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <44072AAF.5040204@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 12:26:07 -0500
From: Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jcp-open@apache.org
Subject: Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
References: <440499F0.60901@pobox.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603011605200.5141@kongo> <4407198D.9030508@toolazydogs.com>
 <440725C4.2010802@pobox.com> <44072836.4050900@toolazydogs.com>
In-Reply-To: <44072836.4050900@toolazydogs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote, On 3/2/2006 9:05 AM:
> 
>>
>>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote, On 3/1/2006 1:08 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced  :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the 
>>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on 
>>>>> this EG.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev.  Please don't crosspost, but discuss on 
>>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening 
>>>> between yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach 
>>>> JCP issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny 
>>>> All - then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like 
>>>> philosophies.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've been keeping quiet because Dain's arguments reflect my 
>>> sentiments.  I am more than a bit incredulous about the ability of 
>>> two separate standards bodies to somehow cooperate on this already 
>>> completed Java spec; Geir's analogy w/ Groovy does not hold. 
>>
>>
>> Huh?  I never tried to make an analogy between Groovy and OSGi.  I 
>> mentioned Groovy as an example of the way we'd like to see JSRs done, 
>> right?
> 
> 
> Yep, but the Groovy community's proposal to the JCP is not the same as 
> what OSGi is proposing.

Nor is it a huffalump the same as what OSGi is proposing.  I'm not sure 
why you are tying Groovy and OSGi together.  I certainly didn't.

geir