On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> Choices are
>>
>> 1) Podling -> TLP
>> 2) Podling -> Felix Sub project
>> 3) Podling -> Felix Sub project -> TLP
>> 4) Felix Sub project
>> 5) Felix Sub project -> TLP
>>
>> So, why should we bypas
On 9/4/09 16:49, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
I see your viewpoint better now. Thanks.
One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not
being able or willing to participate in a new podling? (If the folks
presenting this proposal do wish to start off as a podling)
Let me clarify why i asked that question, When we started the Wink Podling there was strong recommendation that the
incoming folks should work under CXF which already has a JAX-RS implementation. Once we did start the podling we have
had guidance from just Dan Kulp from CXF and not from anyone el
Richard,
I see your viewpoint better now. Thanks.
One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not being able or willing to participate in a new
podling? (If the folks presenting this proposal do wish to start off as a podling)
thanks,
dims
On 09/04/2009 04:31 PM, Richar
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>
>>> So, no, I am not saying "everything should", but in general, it would be
>>> nice if the spec impls started there since we h
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
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 recepti
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>
> The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
> Cassandra 0.4.0-rc1. We would now like to request the approval of the
> Incubator PMC for this release.
>
>
+1 from me.
Matthieu
> Cassandra is a massively scalable, even
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
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
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 d
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Kulp 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 speci
+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 s
We need the software grant on file for this, did I miss it?
-> richard
On 9/4/09 7:25, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
The Apache Felix project has received a contribution of an Improved OSGi
HttpService implementation
* The code is attached to the FELIX-1456 JIRA issue [1]
* The IP Clearance
Greetings,
The shindig community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
1.1-BETA2. The next step is approval by the Incubator PMC to publish this
release. The summary is attached below. Note that we did have to respin
the release twice due to issues with checksums. Artifacts are here:
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
For things that come from ServiceMix, I think the story is really
different. ServiceMix TLP charter is the following: "an extensible
messaging bus for service integration, mediation and composition and its
related components". So clearly, Karaf, as an enhanced OSGi runtime
distribution, does n
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 G
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
Let me point out one more time: Nobody is talking about Aries as a
Felix "incubator" project. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec
implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope.
I'd be more then happy to see the rest of the proposal (namely, to
explore how to build an enterprise
2009/9/4 Guillaume Nodet
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 07:50, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, let's assume that one or more OSGi spec implementations are a core
> > part
> > > of Aries -- with specific features/customization for Aries.
There are a few things I don't understand well. I thought the ASF over the
past years was trying to discourage umbrella projects. I also thought that
overlap between the projects was indeed accepted (we already have multiple
JAX-WS or JAX-RS implementations in various TLPs / podlings).
That was
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 thin
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 07:50, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller
> wrote:
>
> > So, let's assume that one or more OSGi spec implementations are a core
> part
> > of Aries -- with specific features/customization for Aries. Personally,
> it
> > seems reasonable tha
Hi,
The Apache Felix project has received a contribution of an Improved OSGi
HttpService implementation
* The code is attached to the FELIX-1456 JIRA issue [1]
* The IP Clearance form has been committed to the Incubator website. [2]
* A vote has passed on the d...@felix mailing list [3]
The c
This vote is being cancelled due to an issue found with the CCL license in
the LICENSE file.
Makes sense. I'll call off the vote and re-tag. I'll send another heads up
when the podling voting starts on the RC3 candidate.
Thanks everyone, especially Sebb, for your attention,
-T
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>>> > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
>>> > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
>>> > > the full text.
>>> >
>>> > Good
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Todd Volkert wrote:
>> > > The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
>> > > icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
>> > > the full text.
>> >
>> > Good to know - I'll update it on the trunk. Given that we got
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Miller 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
> importan
28 matches
Mail list logo
