www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niclas Hedhman" <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: JSR 291 - public review
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:18:36 GMT
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.

> However, in the case of this JSR, these concerns were specifically
> 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.

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.


Cheers
Niclas

Mime
View raw message