incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Robinson <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi
Date Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:37:47 GMT
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 minimum barrier to entry. There will be tensions in implementing 
the specs to work in a way that reflects how these apps are built today 
vs how we'd start afresh given that opportunity. When the question "why 
do we need to accomodate the baggage of XYZ in the 
servlet/JNDI/JTA/JMX/JPA/... spec comes up it will be the AppServer and 
integration runtime folks who have the need for accomodating the 
quirkier corners of "legacy" Java EE behaviour. They are going to have a 
perspective that is a little different from one whose success criteria 
is OSGi spec compliance without a need to additionally accomodate some 
of the warts, or integrate with some of the other features, of Java EE. 
Given this slightly different perspective (and the warts) it is perhaps 
understandable that a community with this interest might see value in 
developing its own culture within the laws of the (Apache) land, while 
living in peace with its neighbours.

Ian Robinson

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"<>  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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message