Hi Peter, thank you. Welcome to eveyone.
Cheers,
Jeremy
2009/9/14 Peter Peshev :
> HI Jeremy,
>
> I have added seven names to the wiki as per your instructions :
>
> Bernd Kolb
> Dimo Stoilov
> Kiril Mitov
> Nikolai Tankov
> Peter Peshev
> Sabine Heider
> Violeta Georgieva
>
> The people have wor
ymond Feng
> rf...@apache.org
> --
> From: "Guillaume Nodet"
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 1:47 AM
> To: "general"
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
>
>> I've added both Jean
HI Jeremy,
I have added seven names to the wiki as per your instructions :
Bernd Kolb
Dimo Stoilov
Kiril Mitov
Nikolai Tankov
Peter Peshev
Sabine Heider
Violeta Georgieva
The people have worked on various modules from SAP's Java EE certified
server, from SAP's SCA implentation as well as from S
Peter Peshev wrote:
Anyway - after reading the proposal , my mental model for Aries is the
following - a group of bundles or web archives (here comes RFC 66 )
are grouped via a new extended SCA component type (
implementation.osgi_application) or perhaps inherit from the
implementation.jee tha
1, 2009 1:47 AM
To: "general"
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
I've added both Jean-Sebastien and you to the proposal.
2009/9/11 Carsten Ziegeler :
Hi,
sounds like interesting stuff. I would like to be added to the initial
committer list as well
Hi Jeremy,
Yes, I would try to do that on Monday morning
Best Regards
Peter
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> As discussion is settling down, I'd like to aim for Tuesday next week
> (15 Sept) to call a vote.
>
> Peter, does that give you time to supply your initial set of
Hi Jeremy,
No I don't feel strongly for this, I am not suggesting a change of the
proposal, I am just trying to build a detailed picture for myself
(and perhaps for the community) what exactly some parts of Aries
project would look like. I am not Apache experienced, so I am not
sure whether I sh
As discussion is settling down, I'd like to aim for Tuesday next week
(15 Sept) to call a vote.
Peter, does that give you time to supply your initial set of committers?
Thanks,
Jeremy
2009/9/10 Jeremy Hughes :
> 2009/9/10 Peter Peshev :
>> Hi Jeremy,
>>
>> Thanks , we would need a few more days
I've added both Jean-Sebastien and you to the proposal.
2009/9/11 Carsten Ziegeler :
> Hi,
>
> sounds like interesting stuff. I would like to be added to the initial
> committer list as well :)
>
> Thanks
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziege...@apache.org
>
>
Hi,
sounds like interesting stuff. I would like to be added to the initial
committer list as well :)
Thanks
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziege...@apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For
Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Cool! So, IMO would be best to post the names here on general@ and let
Jeremy update the Wiki.
Since we're at it, I'd like to sign up as a committer as well (apache
username ngn). Will be quite time constrained in the
Sorry, I didn't mean we would exclude applications from using the JMS
API. There are cases where a Blueprint component isn't concerned what
async comms is being used, and there are times when that level of
detail is needed. There are many use cases which of course we haven't
thought about and that
2009/9/10 Peter Peshev :
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Thanks , we would need a few more days to finalize all the
> participants from our side, some people are on vacation this week .
> Maybe it could be even a bigger number.
Wow, sounds like you have a lot to contribute :-)
> Is there a deadline ?
No, ther
Hi Jeremy,
Well, I had some other use cases in mind besides "Message driven
Blueprint components"
At least in my view JMS API is quite popular and stable so it's not
a rare case to be used from web applications as it is. An interesting
use case would be the resource provisioning. I would expect
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks , we would need a few more days to finalize all the
participants from our side, some people are on vacation this week .
Maybe it could be even a bigger number. Is there a deadline ?
Best Regards
Peter
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> 2009
Sure, please go ahead and add yourselves to the proposal wiki page.
Jeremy
2009/9/10 Roman Roelofsen :
>
> Hi,
>
> ProSyst would like to support the Aries project. 2 people could join the
> Aries development, Todor Boev (t.b...@prosyst.bg) and myself, Roman
> Roelofsen (r.roelof...@prosyst.com).
On Sep 10, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Hughes
wrote:
2009/9/1 Niclas Hedhman :
...
+1 for Incubation, btw. I might sign up as Mentor, if I can
squeeze in the
time...
Can I persuade you to sign up :-) ... we have two experienced ASF
membe
Hi,
ProSyst would like to support the Aries project. 2 people could join the
Aries development, Todor Boev (t.b...@prosyst.bg) and myself, Roman
Roelofsen (r.roelof...@prosyst.com).
We will check the mentioned documents. Is there anything else we can do?
Cheers,
Roman
Hi Peter,
2009/9/9 Peter Peshev :
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> We from SAP would like to join and nominate six people for the
> proposed Aries project. What's the process - should I just add the six
> names on the wiki ? Maybe we could discuss this offline to not spam
> the whole mailing list.
Great news! We
2009/9/8 Peter Peshev :
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Since you are asking about potential committers - at least to me a new
> OSGi project focused on Java EE sounds quite interesting.
>
> Btw, when looking at the proposal I would personally suggest even to
> expand the scope and include other Java enterprise
2009/9/9 Niklas Gustavsson :
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> Cool! So, IMO would be best to post the names here on general@ and let
>> Jeremy update the Wiki.
>
> Since we're at it, I'd like to sign up as a committer as well (apache
> username ngn). Will be quite time const
2009/9/10 Niclas Hedhman :
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>> 2009/9/1 Niclas Hedhman :
>> ...
>>> +1 for Incubation, btw. I might sign up as Mentor, if I can squeeze in the
>>> time...
>> Can I persuade you to sign up :-) ... we have two experienced ASF
>> members as mentor
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> 2009/9/1 Niclas Hedhman :
> ...
>> +1 for Incubation, btw. I might sign up as Mentor, if I can squeeze in the
>> time...
> Can I persuade you to sign up :-) ... we have two experienced ASF
> members as mentors, but I think the additional persp
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Cool! So, IMO would be best to post the names here on general@ and let
> Jeremy update the Wiki.
Since we're at it, I'd like to sign up as a committer as well (apache
username ngn). Will be quite time constrained in the next two-three
months bu
On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Hi Peter,
Excellent! I am hoping that the champions - in this case Kevan
Miller and Guillaume Nodet - will chime in on next steps.
Cool! So, IMO would be best to post the names here on general@ and let
Jeremy update the Wiki. That seems
Hi Peter,
Excellent! I am hoping that the champions - in this case Kevan Miller and
Guillaume Nodet - will chime in on next steps.
thanks,
dims
On 09/09/2009 01:45 PM, Peter Peshev wrote:
Hi Jeremy,
We from SAP would like to join and nominate six people for the
proposed Aries project. What's
Hi Jeremy,
We from SAP would like to join and nominate six people for the
proposed Aries project. What's the process - should I just add the six
names on the wiki ? Maybe we could discuss this offline to not spam
the whole mailing list.
Unfortunately none of the suggested people from our side has
Since there have been several edits, can you repost the latest proposal?
Also, I'm looking forward to contribute and to help integrate any
changes needed to support OpenJPA for RFC 143.
Thanks,
Donald
Jeremy Hughes wrote:
2009/9/2 Leo Simons :
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes
2009/9/2 Leo Simons :
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>> We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal.
...
>
> * Projects that consist of groups of components often have some
> problems maintaining sufficient cohesion as a community. I hope you
> guys will give tha
Hello Jeremy,
Thanks! I'm still considering if it makes sense to add my name to the
list of initial committers to help out with this, but I will
definitely be following what's going on at Aries.
Greetings, Marcel
On Sep 9, 2009, at 13:09 , Jeremy Hughes wrote:
Hi Marcel, I agree it was a
Hi Marcel, I agree it was an oversight. I added the following to the
"Relationship with Other Apache Projects" section:
Apache Ace - http://incubator.apache.org/ace Apache ACE is a software
distribution framework that allows you to centrally manage and
distribute software components, configuration
2009/9/1 Niclas Hedhman :
...
> +1 for Incubation, btw. I might sign up as Mentor, if I can squeeze in the
> time...
Can I persuade you to sign up :-) ... we have two experienced ASF
members as mentors, but I think the additional perspective outside the
two companies putting the proposal forward wo
Hi Jeremy,
Since you are asking about potential committers - at least to me a new
OSGi project focused on Java EE sounds quite interesting.
Btw, when looking at the proposal I would personally suggest even to
expand the scope and include other Java enterprise concepts - for
example integration w
Cross-pollination and help from the Felix community have been talked
about several times and I absolutely welcome that. As such, please
would Felix committers willing to spend time helping the (proposed)
Aries podling add their names to the initial committer list on the
proposal wiki [1]. This natu
Hello Graham,
ACE only just started, so no problem! :) I'm looking forward to
working with Aries on making this happen. I agree with your analysis
so far.
Greetings, Marcel
On Sep 6, 2009, at 22:32 , Graham Charters wrote:
Hi Marcel,
Not mentioning ACE was an oversight. I think there
Hi Marcel,
Not mentioning ACE was an oversight. I think there are two potential
roles for ACE in relation Aries:
1. To distribute and configure the runtime components (those
implementing the enterprise OSGi application programming model).
2. To distribute and configure enterprise OSGi application
Marcel,
I believe it was an oversight to have missed mentioning ACE. Hopefully one of the proposed committers will comment on
this aspect.
thanks,
dims
On 09/06/2009 08:29 AM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
It probably got swamped in the discussion, but, on Sep 1, 2009, at 22:20
, Marcel Offermans
Stuart,
Thanks a ton. Please do join the aries mailing list(s) after we VOTE on (and hopefully accept) the proposal. All the
action will shift there from this mailing list.
thanks,
dims
On 09/05/2009 11:08 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
2009/9/5 Davanum Srinivas
One more question, Will there
It probably got swamped in the discussion, but, on Sep 1, 2009, at
22:20 , Marcel Offermans wrote:
On Sep 1, 2009, at 16:38 , Jeremy Hughes wrote:
Relationships with Other Apache Projects
I know ACE is only in incubation, but is there a reason for not
mentioning it in this list? To me it
Richard,
I did agree with you that Felix would make a great choice as a destination TLP. The situation with ServiceMix/Karaf is
not the same as what is happening here with a new set of incoming committers and code.
I sincerely do hope that cross-pollination happens even when the podling is in
Ralph,
Not yet. Let's wait for the discussions to wrap up.
thanks,
dims
On 09/06/2009 02:59 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Sep 5, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
Voting against a bunch of people forming a new community here at the
ASF is v.disappointing and goes against what IMO the
On Sep 5, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
Voting against a bunch of people forming a new community here at the
ASF is v.disappointing and goes against what IMO the ASF is all about.
If the Felix community wants to get involved with their efforts then
great, if not then don't try to
On 9/5/09 13:36, Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
I will try to keep this short.
The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The
EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of
the compendiu
2009/9/5 Davanum Srinivas
> 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)
>
Personally speaking I'd be willing to help out where possible r
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I will try to keep this short.
>
> The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs. The
> EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as part of
> the compendium spec. Apache Felix was incubated to
Karl,
Please don't get me wrong. Felix is choice for an excellent *destination* TLP. The Incubator PMC itself was setup to
take away the responsibility for training incoming folks from existing TLP(s). So my gut feeling is that we should allow
the incubation process to go on and decide on desti
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Karl,
>
> There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out
> earlier in the thread.
>
>
> I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an
> existing TLP just because of scope. For all you
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Karl Pauls wrote:
> Where in the above "but educating incoming people via contributions
> and meritocracy to an existing project is not some shortcut" do you
> find anything that would imply that the idea is to just accept a large
> number of people into a TLP?
Not
Richard,
#2 - "Finished impls could quickly be released as non-incubator artifacts." is also something that i am not comfortable
with, at least until the new committers get off the ground, attract a user community and show that they are able to
follow the ASF way.
Ideally my hope is that d...
Karl,
There are *many* TLP(s) with overlapping scope as James Strachan pointed out
earlier in the thread.
I don't see the need to shoe horn a new community with new code into an existing TLP just because of scope. For all you
know by the time they get out of the incubator their scope may chang
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> 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 proj
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
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
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
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
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 that an Aries project would want these customized spec
> implementations
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:33 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".
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Perhaps could have been handled differently. However, in the end, I much
> prefer holding a public discussion rather than over a private@ list.
Well, the leads to the sense of "exclusion" instead of "inclusion"
which we very much prefer.
> H
Hello Kevan,
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:48 , Kevan Miller wrote:
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
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?
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:23 PM, 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?
No. There were some internal sensitivities to the t
On 9/3/09 14:37, Ian Robinson wrote:
The discussion on this part of the proposal reflects the origins of it
- people with an interest in AppServers and integration runtimes that
are looking to the new EEG specs to provide additional capability in
their world so that existing applications can be
The discussion on this part of the proposal reflects the origins of it -
people with an interest in AppServers and integration runtimes that are
looking to the new EEG specs to provide additional capability in their
world so that existing applications can begin to take advantage of OSGi
with mi
Richard,
By having the "why should Felix..."-attitude, you solidify a stalemate
stance. It creates a "why should Aries..."-attitude on the other side, for
instance pointing out "there are many examples of multiple spec
implementations at ASF".
I'm not suggesting that Felix should bend over backwa
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
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 reac
On Sep 3, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.> wrote:
If Felix is looking at this as an opportunity, to attract more OSGi
activity at the foundation, expand its base of contributors (at least
to common underlying components) and demons
On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes
wrote:
We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal.
* Any chance of one or two of the other ASF members involved also
stepping up as a mentor?
That would be very good. I left my name of
I think it's important that Aries have its own identity independent
from a particular framework implementation (e.g. Felix or Equinox) or
Kernel (e.g. Karaf, Geronimo, etc.). Independence (both technical and
perception) will help make it equally consumable in each and increase
the likelihood of it
A goal of Aries is to seed a new community focused on the development
of an Enterprise Java OSGi application programming model, and runtime
that is agnostic of server runtime or OSGi framework implementation.
This independence from underlying technology will make Aries' appeal
as broad as possible
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> If Felix is looking at this as an opportunity, to attract more OSGi
> activity at the foundation, expand its base of contributors (at least
> to common underlying components) and demonstrate that the ASF encourages
> creation of the bes
>From my perspective, the incubator isn't a loophole around the
meritocracy approach of existing TLPs. Submitting a couple of patches
can't be to high a barrier for people new to the ASF and the code
base.
We regularly vote people in as committers if they contribute to felix
subprojects and typica
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>> We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal.
>
> * Any chance of one or two of the other ASF members involved also
> stepping up as a mentor?
If Felix is looking at this as an opportunity, to attract more OSGi
We have concluded that umbrellas are no good, and IIRC we have visited this
line of argument in the past, and perhaps it is time again.
My line is; for the sake of the projects, keep them reasonably small. Learn
the art of TAG, create a browse system where each project with the TAG shows
up, and d
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> We have in this proposal a lot of people who are not felix committers and
> who are not even apache committers at all.
>
> They want to work on some code and create a community around it. The way
> the ASF works means that the incubator is t
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
We have in this proposal a lot of people who are not felix committers and
who are not even apache committers at all.
They want to work on some code and create a community around it. The way
the ASF works means that the incubator is the right place to do so. The
only othe
We have in this proposal a lot of people who are not felix committers and
who are not even apache committers at all.
They want to work on some code and create a community around it. The way
the ASF works means that the incubator is the right place to do so. The
only other solution is to develop
I will try to keep this short.
The OSGi Service Platform is composed of the core and compendium specs.
The EEG specs are not in any way special and will ultimately end up as
part of the compendium spec. Apache Felix was incubated to build a
community at Apache around implementing the OSGi spec
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal.
* Any chance of one or two of the other ASF members involved also
stepping up as a mentor?
* Projects that consist of groups of components often have some
problems maintaining sufficien
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> It then becomes a question of, assuming successful incubation, where
> does the community graduate to? TLP, Felix subproject(s), or elsewhere.
And remember that Felix charter is framed in terms of "the OSGi Service
Platform and other software that is associated with or rel
On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 9/1/09 13:59, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Richard S.
Hall wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Whether Aries becomes its
own TLP, or a sub-project of Felix or some other TLP, isn't relevant
until th
On Sep 1, 2009, at 16:38 , Jeremy Hughes wrote:
It is a goal of the Aries project to provide a natural home for open
source implementations of current and future OSGi EEG specifications,
including the opportunity for the collaborative development of
compliance tests, and an environment to demons
On Sep 1, 2009, at 17:45 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
ACE is another podling related to OSGi and AFAIK it implements the
DeploymentAdmin OSGi spec.
Just to clear up any misconceptions:
ACE does not implement the DeploymentAdmin spec. That was donated to
Felix and ACE uses it.
ACE is an applic
How is it that so many people already use Felix subprojects on other
frameworks if there isn't already some understanding on this already?
Just because some people perceive it to not be that way, doesn't mean we
should throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is a poor argument.
Just starting
Uhhh... So you intend to re-educate the 'masses' in two ways;
1. "NO, NO, NO, Felix is not an OSGi framework, it is a group of OSGi
projects... Apache Foo is an OSGi framework..."
2. "NO, NO, NO, Felix bundles works on other things than Felix, I mean the
Apache Foo..."
Or did I misunderstand som
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
