On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> Over the last couple of days, we have seen some good suggestions and support
> for the initial proposal. For implementing the Remote Services, some
> candidates have been identified (Axis2/C and SCA bindings in Tuscany).
>
> Before start
On 6 Oct 2010, at 9:52 , Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Marcel Offermans
> wrote:
>> ...As the champion, I'd be happy to be a mentor too. This would be my first
>> time, so I probably
>> need to formally join the Incubator PMC first?...
>
> Yes, as a member you jus
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> ...As the champion, I'd be happy to be a mentor too. This would be my first
> time, so I probably
> need to formally join the Incubator PMC first?...
Yes, as a member you just need to ask at priv...@incubator.apache.org .
-Bertrand
-
Over the last couple of days, we have seen some good suggestions and support
for the initial proposal. For implementing the Remote Services, some candidates
have been identified (Axis2/C and SCA bindings in Tuscany).
Before starting a vote we need a couple of mentors to support the project while
On 5 Oct 2010, at 8:58 , David Bosschaert wrote:
> Small correction: Universal OSGi is an RFP, not a whitepaper. In fact,
> it's RFP 89.
> I'm currently working to see if I can distribute this RFP to a wider audience.
You are right and that would be nice!
Greetings, Marcel
Small correction: Universal OSGi is an RFP, not a whitepaper. In fact,
it's RFP 89.
I'm currently working to see if I can distribute this RFP to a wider audience.
Best regards,
David
On 4 October 2010 23:36, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:28 , Marcel Offermans wrote:
>
>> On 24
On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:28 , Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:21 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you may
>> need to take care in how you position this. I believe the OSGi specs allow
>> for compliant open source impleme
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> the CXF project is named as dependency to test the remote services
>>> in combination with other java based OSGi implementations.
>>> The C part should be in C, and Axis2/C seems a good candidate. But at the
>>> moment we are also lookin
Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
> The SCA bindings do sound interesting, but one of the first goals is,
> is to have a means to communicate with Java OSGi, and to have a light
weight
> implementation.
I strongly suggest, then, that you work with the Tuscany folks and leverage
their existing implementa
Hi David, Noel,
OSGi Remote Services is all about developing in the OSGi programming
> model with bundles and services and using the concepts there to define
> a remote service.
BTW the SCA concept of intents was actually added to the Remote
> Services specifications, so there is a soft link ther
Hi Noel,
On 27 September 2010 18:18, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> So why aren't you looking at SCA? From where I sit, you'd be best to work
> with C bindings for SCA, and let the SCA adapters manage remote protocols.
Exactly this discussion was held when the OSGi Remote Services (now
chapter 13 of
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> the CXF project is named as dependency to test the remote services
>> in combination with other java based OSGi implementations.
>> The C part should be in C, and Axis2/C seems a good candidate. But at the
>> moment we are also looking at
> the CXF project is named as dependency to test the remote services
> in combination with other java based OSGi implementations.
> The C part should be in C, and Axis2/C seems a good candidate. But at the
> moment we are also looking at other, lighter, protocols to use.
So why aren't you looking
Hi Sanjiva,
Sorry for the confusion, the CXF project is named as dependency to test the
remote services in combination with other java based OSGi implementations.
The C part should be in C, and Axis2/C seems a good candidate. But at the
moment we are also looking at other, lighter, protocols to us
Alexander, I'm confused about the remote API aspect- since Celix is in C why
would you implement the remote API in Java with CXF? Why wouldn't you use
Axis2/C?
Sanjiva.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Alexander Broekhuis
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to announce the following proposal as a
+1 (non-binding)
Good project IMO, we need more project in languages other than Java :).
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:21 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you may
Hello Richard,
On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:21 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you may need
> to take care in how you position this. I believe the OSGi specs allow for
> compliant open source implementations, but it is unlikely this implement
I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you
may need to take care in how you position this. I believe the OSGi specs
allow for compliant open source implementations, but it is unlikely this
implementation will ever be fully compliant. So, you'd probably be best
to just
Hello,
A small error was left in the proposal:
The mailing lists should be:
- celix-dev
- celix-private
instead of cosgi-*
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Alexander Broekhuis
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to announce the following proposal as a new incubator
> project.
> Abstract
>
> Cel
Hello,
I would like to announce the following proposal as a new incubator project.
Abstract
Celix is a OSGi like implementation in C with a distinct focus on
interoperability between Java-OSGi and Celix.
Proposal
Celix will be an implementation of the OSGi specification adapted to C. It
will fo
20 matches
Mail list logo
