Being a fan and a regular contributor of Felix I still don't see why Felix should have the monopoly on OSGi spec implementations.
If there is a group of people who would like to build a community *specifically* around enterprise OSGi components, then why not let them do that? If some of these things implement an OSGi specification, that's even better! Why would they be allowed to implement only things that don't happen to be an OSGi spec? That would produce a very fragmented community. I don't understand the need to decide from high up: projext X cannot do some of the thing that project Y is already doing. Maybe it needs to be clearly spelled out in the proposal that there is overlap with other projects, but still I don't see why overlap would be an issue. David Bosschaert http://osgithoughts.blogspot.com/ 2009/9/4 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman<nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller<kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>... What would be the >>> benefit for the Aries community of developing these spec implementations at >>> Felix? >> >> Ideally, you have more people taking care of any issues. More >> importantly, you need to think outside the project and ask "What would >> be the benefit for ASF...?", and IMHO having a complete spec suite >> from one place benefits ASF as a whole.... > > Very much agree with that. Being able to say "OSGi spec > implementations happen at Felix, and > customizations/application-specific stuff/extensions etc. usually > happen in other projects" leads to a clear picture for "customers" of > Apache OSGi stuff (and BTW the incubation proposal forgot about Sling > apparently - we might use Aries' stuff as well in there). > > I don't like the idea of having part of the OSGi specs scattered > around several projects - as a general rule. Several modules are now > at Felix that were initially developed by the communities of other > projects (ServiceMix, Slng, ACE), and moved to Felix once recognized > as being "of general interest to OSGi users" - I think that's a very > good model both for ASF insiders and outsiders. > > Several projects in the history of the ASF have granted commit access > to committers of other projects on parts of their codebase. That > wouldn't be a new thing. Forrest committers, for example, have commit > rights on Cocoon, but they're expected to ask before changing stuff in > there, to make sure Cocoon folks know what's going on. > > That works well, IMHO, and maybe Felix could similarly open parts of > their codebase to other OSGi-related projects, with the same > convention of "just let us know before making changes in there" and > "make sure you're following our dev list". > > I know such issues can be discussed during incubation, not necessarily > before the podling is accepted, but the fact that (AFAIK) no contact > was made with the Felix project before creating the Aries proposal is > very disturbing - so IMHO we should rather clarify this before > accepting the podling. > > Maybe simply saying "modules that implement OSGi specs, or that are of > general interest to OSGi users, will be moved to the Felix project, as > much as possible" in the Aries proposal would help. That should be > true for any project doing OSGi at Apache anyway, and I think the > other projects mentioned above are working like that, which is a Good > Thing, > > I'm very happy to see Guillaume as a mentor for Aries, that will > hopefully help in building bridges between Felix and Aries. > > -Bertrand > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
