On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com> wrote: > The real goal as it has > been said an OSGi Enterprise Programming Model, and the comparison > that has been made with Geronimo is not bad.
Uhhhh... No. "The aim of the project is to produce a large and healthy community of J2EE developers tasked with the development of an open source, certified J2EE server..." IMHO, that is above and beyond what I am looking for. In fact, very clear scope "certified J2EE server". So instead of being critical, let me try and show with words what I see the difference; > Just keep the following sentences in mind: "The Aries project will > deliver a set of pluggable Java components enabling an enterprise OSGi > application programming model. "The Aries project will define and develop an OSGi programming model, that enables an inter-operable component eco-system for enterprise OSGi applications (or servers)..." ?? And in order to do so, it is natural that reference components are developed, but leave that out as a goal in itself. If it is "conversion of the well-used J2EE specifications into OSGi-enabled alternatives", i.e. "JNDI for OSGi", "JPA for OSGi" and so on, then spell that out. If it IS a goal to become a large component registry for "anything OSGI enterprisey" then my -1 vote will stand. > This includes implementations and > extensions of application-focused specifications defined by the OSGi > Alliance Enterprise Expert Group (EEG) and an assembly format for > multi-bundle applications, for deployment to a variety of OSGi based > runtimes." And the above part is Ok. > The first sentence is the key one. And that is the one that I don't like ;-) especially when looking at the filler text later. > It is what happened in other TLPs: Camel was first developed inside > ActiveMQ but moved to TLP because it did not really fit in ActiveMQ. > Felix Karaf has originally been developed inside ServiceMix for its > use, but given it was not really tied to ServiceMix, nor in the real > scope of the project, it has been moved as a Felix subproject. Well, IMHO, the wider the charter is written, the more unclear it becomes whether something belongs there or not. For instance, I think Felix is too encompassing and there is no 'natural' "move this out" threshold. Although that is a separate problem, I would like to avoid such scenarios in the future. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
