On 9/4/09 9:05, Daniel Kulp wrote:
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.
Actually, I had conversations with the CXF/DOSGi team at IONA during its
development. We discussed the technological approach as well as the
potential home. My position was/is:
1. If it is tied to CXF and it not generally useful without it, then
it is reasonable for it to be hosted at CXF.
2. If it is completely general and of interest to a general user, not
just a CXF user, then it is reasonable for it to be hosted at Felix.
Since they felt it was fairly specific to CXF, that's where it ended up.
So, no, I am not saying "everything should", but in general, it would be
nice if the spec impls started there since we have a community of OSGi
users and OSGi experts who are very active and receptive, many of whom
also work in the EE space.
In short, it makes sense for spec impls tied to the Aries component
model (for example), to be hosted there, but there is little need to
create another project to incubate generic OSGi spec impls, since the
Felix community was set up for that. The reality is, most OSGi specs are
not huge projects so we likely wouldn't want TLPs for all of them, but
nothing stops a subproject started at Felix from going TLP if it takes
on a life of its own.
-> richard
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
