www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:46:43 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrote:
>> I think we'd like to see all JSRs be more open and collaborative -
>> nothing to argue there. I think it's great that there was some effort
>> towards making this particular JSR more open.
> Ok. So ASF will vote NO on all future JSRs that are not totally 
> transparent?
> I am fine with that, but please be consistent and not budge on
> principles, if that is what this is.


>> raised in the ASF's yes vote and the no vote of other EC members to
>> negate the impression that this was just "rubberstamping". My
>> reasoning was that, from looking at the mail archives, what was done
>> here was something that could have been achieved without the JSR. And
>> that's fine - the OSGi spec can stand on it's own two feet.
> However, in the case of this JSR, these concerns were specifically
> Agree.
> But, this is not uncommon. The Spec Lead is responsible for the whole
> production process, and the Expert Group is an advisor board. The EG
> chats and the Spec Lead assimilate that and throws something over the
> fence for further discussions.
> The difference is that what is "thrown over the fence" is *very
> mature* and most EG members are probably quite content with what they
> see. Now, it seems, that have a mature starting point (something that
> works) is a handicap.
>> One other question I had that hasn't been discussed is the RI and TCK
>> - we earlier encouraged these to be implemented through existing open
>> source projects such as Felix or Equinox. Was there any movement
>> towards this?
> No, there wasn't. The Spec Lead has "promised" on behalf of the OSGi
> Alliance that TCK will be made available to Open Source organizations.
> ASF has access to the TCK via Richard Hall privately, and IIUIC that
> is how Felix achieves its compliance.
> Reasons for this JSR, IMHO, is not so much whether it is
> rubberstamping OSGi Alliance work or not, but downstream work that can
> happen straight in JCP, having a dependency on JSR-291. This allows
> non-OSGi Alliance members to actively work on extensions, and is a
> reducation in the significance of being an Alliance member.
> Everyone is talking about convergence towards the JCP, now when it
> happens it is a bad thing. People talk about more openess, 291 was
> more open than many, but that is a bad thing and *not enough*.
> FYI, RedHat voted NO to start the JSR. They have in its final stages
> requested (and granted) to enter the EG. There are probably many
> speculations around their decision to do so, but *I* think that JBoss
> has finally *discovered* OSGi and also want to have a dependency on a
> JCP accepted standard.

+1 to all of it...

I should just shut up and let Niclas speak for me... ;-)

-> richard

> Cheers
> Niclas

View raw message