+1 from me as well. Just to reiterate one more point, As with any other podling, the destination of this podling is determined *when* we graduate. If there is enough "help/guidance/participation" from folks on d...@felix to the podling, then the podling will naturally gravitate towards becoming a subproject of felix.
thanks, dims On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Daniel Kulp<dk...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri September 4 2009 9:27:23 am Graham Charters wrote: >> Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the >> suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix. I don't >> see this approach being taken for other specification organizations >> (JCP, OASIS, etc.) and I think that is to the benefit of Apache. For >> example, whilst a goal of Geronimo is JEE compliance it does not host >> all the implementations of the JEE specifications. Having OpenEJB, >> OpenJPA, Tomcat, etc as separate projects allows them to evolve >> independent communities, with cross-pollination. The domains, >> technologies and skills required to cover the entirety of JEE are >> diverse and the same is true for OSGi. To put these under one project >> would lead to sub-groups of different interests under one disjoint >> umbrella community. > > +1 > > Geronimo is a perfect example. Couldn't have said it better myself. The > community of the "experts" in the technology area should be the ones > implementing those specs as part of their community. > > Dan > > > >> >> I also worry about the practicalities of saying that all OSGi spec >> implementations belong in Felix. This is a moving target, both within >> each specification, where extensions may be created and then >> standardized and also at the spec level, where new concepts are >> created and then standardized. Must these then move under the Felix >> umbrella, which will undoubtedly create a lot of churn for users of, >> and contributors to, Aries? >> >> Thinking about the problem the way JEE is handled makes me wonder if >> Felix could pull in spec implementations from Aries (and have >> committers on Aries) and therefore still contribute to and provide the >> distribution of the entire OSGi Service Platform. Maybe this could be >> done through Felix hosting a bundle repository (Felix commons?)? >> Consumers of Felix would be able to get the OSGi Service Platform and >> consumers of Aries would get the enterprise OSGi application portions. >> >> I'd like to emphasize that the desire to be separate from Felix is in >> no way a criticism of that project. I have a huge amount of respect >> for what Richard et al continue to achieve and having experienced >> first-hand the value the combination of Felix and Equinox bring to the >> OSGi standards, I sincerely believe that OSGi is far stronger as a >> result. >> >> The desire to remain separate is based purely on the belief that this >> is the approach which will best serve the goals of evolving an >> enterprise OSGi application programming model, and a community around >> its definition. This rationale is also the reason why Geronimo was >> not suggested (an equally valid choice given the majority of the >> Enterprise OSGi specifications leverage JEE technologies). I guess >> what I don't understand is why the Incubator would not prove or >> disprove this belief, without making a prior decision? >> >> Regards, Graham. >> >> 2009/9/4 Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>: >> > As a point of note, not all OSGi spec implementations live in Felix even >> > at Apache today. The Remote Services/Distributed OSGi reference >> > implementation is a sub project of CXF. I think Tuscany has an >> > implementation as well. >> > >> > So far, there hasn't been any discussion about moving those into Felix. >> > Your argument below makes it sound like they should be. >> > >> > Dan >> > >> > On Thu September 3 2009 1:33:04 pm Richard S. Hall wrote: >> >> There was no attempt to contact the Felix PMC in general that I am aware >> >> and I certainly didn't know about it in advance. >> >> >> >> And there seems to be a continued attempt to construe my original >> >> criticisms as "all of Aries should go into Felix". >> >> >> >> I, personally, do not believe that all of Aries should go into Felix, I >> >> too think it should have its own identity. I was always only ever >> >> referring to the independent OSGi spec implementations. I was arguing >> >> that Felix is a good place to work on them, since it is part of what it >> >> is trying to achieve. >> >> >> >> Further, I don't really understand the implication that somehow the >> >> burden is now on the Felix community to go and contribute to Aries on >> >> OSGi spec implementations just because of this proposal, when there was >> >> no attempt to work with the Felix community on creating OSGi spec >> >> implementations in the first. >> >> >> >> The only conclusions I see being drawn by people who have invested very >> >> little in Felix is that we should dismantle the Felix charter so that we >> >> can accommodate the fact that some people don't want to play with us. >> >> >> >> At that rate, I stand by my previous "vote" and otherwise people can do >> >> whatever they want in Aries. >> >> >> >> -> richard >> >> >> >> On 9/3/09 13:23, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> > Kevan, >> >> > >> >> > Was a contact with Felix made prior to dropping the proposal here? I >> >> > got the impression that wasn't the case, which I find surprising... If >> >> > I am wrong, what was the meat of such? >> >> > >> >> > I'm also less happy with the rhetoric here repeated over and over, >> >> > seemingly uninterested in discussion of reaching a solution everyone >> >> > can accept. (From both camps, btw) >> >> > >> >> > -- Niclas >> >> > >> >> > On Sep 4, 2009 12:53 AM, "Kevan Miller"<kevan.mil...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:> On Thu, Sep 3, >> >> > 2009 at 3:19 AM, William A. Ro... >> >> > Totally agree. Had certainly hoped that Felix committers would be >> >> > interested in joining... >> >> > >> >> > --kevan >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: gene... >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Kulp >> > dk...@apache.org >> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > > -- > Daniel Kulp > dk...@apache.org > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
