celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sascha Zelzer <s.zel...@dkfz-heidelberg.de>
Subject Re: Board report
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:31:34 GMT

I thought I comment shortly on the graduation plan as an outsider. 
Overall I think the plan is well thought-out.

On 04/01/2012 01:02 PM, Alexander Broekhuis wrote:
> == Releases
> Celix entered incubation in its early stage. There was only a proof of
> concept, but no complete implementation.
> This is an important reason for people to hold back and not yet use/improve
> Celix, on the other hand,  being hesitant also keeps Celix from growing
> towards a more stable/robust solution.
> To be able to use Celix the implementation has to reach, at least, a more
> stable state. Over the past year lots of effort has been put into this.
> Within the next half year a release has to be made of the core component of
> Celix. Hopefully this will attract more users/testers (and potentially
> committers).
> == Committers
> *During the last months there has been an interest from Thales Netherlands
> to use Celix in its middleware. In a research project they are working on
> an implementation of the Device Access specification. This implementation
> is donated to Celix, and the main developer has expressed the intention to
> maintain the code base. Via this path a new committer has been added to
> Celix [1][2].
> *But to be able to have a diverse community more committers are needed.
> Having a release makes it easier for people to use and improve Celix. This
> is one step towards more committers.

I think that even some kind of snapshot (even source only) with a 
documented feature set would help a lot. Of course, a "release" would be 
even better, but a tested snapshot would probably make some people more 
comfortable when trying Celix.

Maybe not that important for the graduation plan, but I missed an 
official list of supported platforms. That made it hard for me to judge 
up front if Celix would run on my platform (Linux, Windows, Mac, etc.) 
or if it is even being considered as a target platform.

> = C++ Support
> == Technical Scope
> Currently Celix is limited to C only. This was a deliberate choice since
> Celix tries to target  embedded/constrained platforms. But during talks
> people also seem to be interested in C++ support. Extending the technical
> scope of the project might attract more users and committers.
> Over the next half year we will work out a plan how C++ support can be
> added without impacting the current supported platforms. A start with the
> discussions has been made on the mailinglist, see [2] for more information.
> [3]: http://markmail.org/thread/a3qltqhsocmrnerd
> <http://markmail.org/thread/a3qltqhsocmrnerd>
> == Cooperate with existing C++ OSGi like implementations
> In [3] a list of similar projects is mentioned. Reaching out to these
> projects and trying to find a common ground on requirements/API etc could
> benefit Celix (and those projects as well).
> To see if there is a common ground we need to contact those projects and
> plan a meeting.

Sounds all good to me.



View raw message