You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/02/28 19:44:00 UTC
JSR 291 : OSGi
Today a new JSR was officially announced :
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
As you can see, this is for OSGi.
I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
Expert Group.
Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this EG.
I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
jcp-open@apache.org
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into
>> the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
>
> That's my default position for most of this. We need to play to be
> influential, and hopefully our values rub off on people.
>
>> but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi
>> provides so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into
>> account. The last thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented
>> picture on modularity.
>
> Agreed on both, and w/ reference to my other mail, you aren't one of
> the annoying OSGi proponents :)
I almost protested that description of me... ;-)
It sounds like we are on the same page.
-> richard
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into the
> JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
That's my default position for most of this. We need to play to be
influential, and hopefully our values rub off on people.
> but I
> hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi provides
> so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into account. The last
> thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented picture on modularity.
Agreed on both, and w/ reference to my other mail, you aren't one of the
annoying OSGi proponents :)
geir
>
> -> richard
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into
>>>> the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
>>>> but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi
>>>> provides so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into
>>>> account. The last thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented
>>>> picture on modularity.
>>> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would the
>>> JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This just
>>> seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP giving
>>> the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and then later
>>> you can come get your stamp.
>>
>> I think that the JCP crossed that bridge a long time ago. Like when
>> it was founded...
>>
>>> My guess is the next spec we will see is SCA from IBM, which was
>>> specifically developed outside of the JCP process for whatever reason.
>>
>> I'd be surprised. I thought SCA was intended for the opposite - to
>> get SOA momentum away from the JCP. Let it stew in the J2EE mess...
>
> ROTFL - Sad but true.
>
> So that is the state of things. Is there anything we can do to make
> things better? Or are we stuck with a closed, dare I say
> anti-meritocratic, java community process?
I don't think it's hopeless, and the meritocratic angle is interesting...
The thing we haven't done is put our money where our mouth is and
actually propose, lead and complete a JSR the way we want everyone else
to do it. I think the closest we've ever come is JDOM (which didn't and
won't finish) and Groovy (still in progress).
The problem is that no one here is motivated to do it, because there is
little upside, and I don't blame them.
I came very close to that brink when we proposed a JSR for Java
Templating (via Velocity), but that scared the bejeesus out of the J2EE
vendors at the time because it worked better than JSP, and even though
we weren't proposing it as a J2EE view layer, they still were set to
vote it down, so we withdrew. In retrospect, I'm very glad.
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into
>>>> the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
>>>> but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi
>>>> provides so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into
>>>> account. The last thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented
>>>> picture on modularity.
>>> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would the
>>> JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This just
>>> seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP giving
>>> the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and then later
>>> you can come get your stamp.
>>
>> I think that the JCP crossed that bridge a long time ago. Like when
>> it was founded...
>>
>>> My guess is the next spec we will see is SCA from IBM, which was
>>> specifically developed outside of the JCP process for whatever reason.
>>
>> I'd be surprised. I thought SCA was intended for the opposite - to
>> get SOA momentum away from the JCP. Let it stew in the J2EE mess...
>
> ROTFL - Sad but true.
>
> So that is the state of things. Is there anything we can do to make
> things better? Or are we stuck with a closed, dare I say
> anti-meritocratic, java community process?
>
> -dain
that's standards bodies for you.
vendor politics (partly driven by the inertial mass of implemented
code), and the conflicting goals of timely standards (to declare victory
over an area of technology) and to produce something that is workable.
Many standards bodies (OASIS here) doesn't have any requirement for
defining acceptance tests or other ways of measuring compliance. So you
get a timely piece of paper (its fast as nobody needs to worry about
implementation)
JCP normally has an edge here as they produce an API+javadocs, and the
elusive TCK kits. Its just a shame they have to be so secretive about
the whole thing. I can handle doing dev in moderate privacy, but why are
the TCK kits viewed as a control point?
We use email and host our compliance kit on sourceforge, where gump does it:
http://vmgump.apache.org/gump/public/ggf-cddlm/cddlm/index.html
Even so, a standards process is inherently less responsive than an OSS
project, because every change puts you back up what is essentially a
waterfall process. And we know about waterfalls dont we?
Oh yes: http://www.waterfall2006.com/loughran.html
-steve
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4
>>> into the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would
>>> be good, but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the
>>> value that OSGi provides so that related work (such as JSR277)
>>> take OSGi into account. The last thing I want or that Java needs
>>> is a fragmented picture on modularity.
>> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would
>> the JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This
>> just seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP
>> giving the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and
>> then later you can come get your stamp.
>
> I think that the JCP crossed that bridge a long time ago. Like
> when it was founded...
>
>> My guess is the next spec we will see is SCA from IBM, which was
>> specifically developed outside of the JCP process for whatever
>> reason.
>
> I'd be surprised. I thought SCA was intended for the opposite - to
> get SOA momentum away from the JCP. Let it stew in the J2EE mess...
ROTFL - Sad but true.
So that is the state of things. Is there anything we can do to make
things better? Or are we stuck with a closed, dare I say anti-
meritocratic, java community process?
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into the
>> JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good, but I
>> hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi provides
>> so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into account. The last
>> thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented picture on modularity.
>
> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would the
> JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This just seems
> like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP giving the nod to
> big companies to develop specs in private and then later you can come
> get your stamp.
I think that the JCP crossed that bridge a long time ago. Like when it
was founded...
>
> My guess is the next spec we will see is SCA from IBM, which was
> specifically developed outside of the JCP process for whatever reason.
I'd be surprised. I thought SCA was intended for the opposite - to get
SOA momentum away from the JCP. Let it stew in the J2EE mess...
geir
> Is the future of the JCP external specs?
>
> -dain
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> I am not sure if you are labeling me as the OSGi Alliance or you
>> meant "you and the OSGi Alliance"...I definitely don't consider
>> myself to speak for the OSGi Alliance.
>
>
> Should have proof read the email before sending... meant to write
> just "I understand why he OSGi Alliance would want this"... I was
> going to put "you" in there but didn't want to singly you out...
> guess I did that anyway, sorry.
No problem, I always have tons of typos in my messages...in too much of
a hurry, I guess. :-)
>> Contrary to what you might think, my involvement in the OSGi
>> Alliance was fostered purely through open community activity.
>>
>> And if this could open the OSGi specification process more, then it
>> would be good...
>
>
> Do you think it actually will? My opinion is that having the JCP
> accept externally developed specs and approving them without a full
> community process, will remove the motivation to be open.
I can only speak from my experience, but the OSGi Alliance appears to be
moving in a more open direction, trying to find ways for the community
to participate and provide feedback. The fact that I am a member of the
OSGi Alliance is purely based on meritocracy...they invited me to be a
member and created a special membership category for me based on the
merit of my contributions over the years.
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> Is the JCP really as open as you imply? In reality, if you are not a
>> member of the JSR EG (and/or an employee of member company/
>> organization) then you are basically out of luck when it comes to
>> being able to take part in the "open community process". As far as
>> spec implementability, that is a non-issue for OSGi since I have
>> been doing it for five years.
>
>
> I agree that is a problem, and something I would like see changed
> over time. Basically, I think we should only support changes that
> bring us closer to a truly open meritocratic process, and not support
> steps that move us away. I think this is a step away from openness.
Depends on the perspective. Looking at it from the OSGi Alliance
perspective, maybe it is a step toward openness, whereas from the JCP
perspective it is not. From my limited experience with the JCP, it
doesn't seem much, if any, more closed.
I agree with you, however, that things could be better. We just have to
prod them how we can.
-> richard
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>
>>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4
>>> into the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would
>>> be good, but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the
>>> value that OSGi provides so that related work (such as JSR277)
>>> take OSGi into account. The last thing I want or that Java needs
>>> is a fragmented picture on modularity.
>>
>>
>> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would
>> the JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This
>> just seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP
>> giving the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and
>> then later you can come get your stamp.
>
>
> I am not sure if you are labeling me as the OSGi Alliance or you
> meant "you and the OSGi Alliance"...I definitely don't consider
> myself to speak for the OSGi Alliance.
Should have proof read the email before sending... meant to write
just "I understand why he OSGi Alliance would want this"... I was
going to put "you" in there but didn't want to singly you out...
guess I did that anyway, sorry.
> Contrary to what you might think, my involvement in the OSGi
> Alliance was fostered purely through open community activity.
>
> And if this could open the OSGi specification process more, then it
> would be good...
Do you think it actually will? My opinion is that having the JCP
accept externally developed specs and approving them without a full
community process, will remove the motivation to be open.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Is the JCP really as open as you imply? In reality, if you are not
> a member of the JSR EG (and/or an employee of member company/
> organization) then you are basically out of luck when it comes to
> being able to take part in the "open community process". As far as
> spec implementability, that is a non-issue for OSGi since I have
> been doing it for five years.
I agree that is a problem, and something I would like see changed
over time. Basically, I think we should only support changes that
bring us closer to a truly open meritocratic process, and not support
steps that move us away. I think this is a step away from openness.
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into
>> the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
>> but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi
>> provides so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into
>> account. The last thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented
>> picture on modularity.
>
>
> I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would the
> JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This just
> seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP giving
> the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and then later
> you can come get your stamp.
I am not sure if you are labeling me as the OSGi Alliance or you meant
"you and the OSGi Alliance"...I definitely don't consider myself to
speak for the OSGi Alliance. Contrary to what you might think, my
involvement in the OSGi Alliance was fostered purely through open
community activity.
And if this could open the OSGi specification process more, then it
would be good...
-> richard
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:35 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into
> the JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good,
> but I hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi
> provides so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into
> account. The last thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented
> picture on modularity.
I understand you the OSGi Alliance would want this, but why would the
JCP want to lend it's legitimacy to an outside group? This just
seems like a really really bad idea. To me this is the JCP giving
the nod to big companies to develop specs in private and then later
you can come get your stamp.
My guess is the next spec we will see is SCA from IBM, which was
specifically developed outside of the JCP process for whatever
reason. Is the future of the JCP external specs?
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>>
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>> this EG.
>>
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>
>
> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
Well, I am lurking here, but I didn't want to give my biased view on
JSR291. :-)
From my point of view, it is worthwhile to try to get OSGi R4 into the
JCP. I think it could open up the process, which would be good, but I
hope that it will also give legitimacy to the value that OSGi provides
so that related work (such as JSR277) take OSGi into account. The last
thing I want or that Java needs is a fragmented picture on modularity.
-> richard
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote, On 3/2/2006 9:05 AM:
>
>>
>>
>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote, On 3/1/2006 1:08 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>>> this EG.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening
>>>> between yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach
>>>> JCP issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny
>>>> All - then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like
>>>> philosophies.
>>>>
>>>> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've been keeping quiet because Dain's arguments reflect my
>>> sentiments. I am more than a bit incredulous about the ability of
>>> two separate standards bodies to somehow cooperate on this already
>>> completed Java spec; Geir's analogy w/ Groovy does not hold.
>>
>>
>> Huh? I never tried to make an analogy between Groovy and OSGi. I
>> mentioned Groovy as an example of the way we'd like to see JSRs done,
>> right?
>
>
> Yep, but the Groovy community's proposal to the JCP is not the same as
> what OSGi is proposing.
Nor is it a huffalump the same as what OSGi is proposing. I'm not sure
why you are tying Groovy and OSGi together. I certainly didn't.
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote, On 3/2/2006 9:05 AM:
>
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Henri Yandell wrote, On 3/1/2006 1:08 PM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>
>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>
>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>> this EG.
>>>>
>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>>>
>>> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening
>>> between yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach
>>> JCP issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny
>>> All - then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like
>>> philosophies.
>>>
>>> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I've been keeping quiet because Dain's arguments reflect my
>> sentiments. I am more than a bit incredulous about the ability of
>> two separate standards bodies to somehow cooperate on this already
>> completed Java spec; Geir's analogy w/ Groovy does not hold.
>
>
> Huh? I never tried to make an analogy between Groovy and OSGi. I
> mentioned Groovy as an example of the way we'd like to see JSRs done,
> right?
Yep, but the Groovy community's proposal to the JCP is not the same as
what OSGi is proposing.
>> I still do not understand what is the value add to coming to the
>> JCP. I admire Geir's optimism but the idea seems so wacky, that I
>> remain extremely skeptical. I hope to be proven wrong.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote, On 3/1/2006 1:08 PM:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>
>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>
>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>
>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>> Expert Group.
>>>
>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>> this EG.
>>>
>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>>
>> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
>> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP
>> issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All -
>> then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like
>> philosophies.
>>
>> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
>
>
> FWIW, I've been keeping quiet because Dain's arguments reflect my
> sentiments. I am more than a bit incredulous about the ability of two
> separate standards bodies to somehow cooperate on this already completed
> Java spec; Geir's analogy w/ Groovy does not hold.
Huh? I never tried to make an analogy between Groovy and OSGi. I
mentioned Groovy as an example of the way we'd like to see JSRs done, right?
> I still do not
> understand what is the value add to coming to the JCP. I admire Geir's
> optimism but the idea seems so wacky, that I remain extremely
> skeptical. I hope to be proven wrong.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote, On 3/1/2006 1:08 PM:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>>
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>> this EG.
>>
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>
>
>
> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>
> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP
> issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All -
> then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like
> philosophies.
>
> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
FWIW, I've been keeping quiet because Dain's arguments reflect my
sentiments. I am more than a bit incredulous about the ability of two
separate standards bodies to somehow cooperate on this already completed
Java spec; Geir's analogy w/ Groovy does not hold. I still do not
understand what is the value add to coming to the JCP. I admire Geir's
optimism but the idea seems so wacky, that I remain extremely
skeptical. I hope to be proven wrong.
Regards,
Alan
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>>
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this
>> EG.
>>
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>
>
> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>
One person volunteered in private mail, and I haven't gotten back to him
to tell him to volunteer here, but I will.
> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP issues
> - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All - then Allow'
> or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like philosophies.
Maybe. I don't have much passion for this one either way. If the peeps
from Felix or whoever want to represent us, great! If they decide that
the thing is a sham or whatever, great! If they go in gung-ho and then
decide there were problems, then we deal with that when the time comes.
There are lots of interesting politics swirling around this JSR,
especially in conjunction with 277, the Modularity JSR, because this new
JSR obviously has the potential to put lots of pressure on 277.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. We're in a good
position to participate in a politics-immune way - we just decide what's
best for our communities, or if we decide that this battle between two
giants doesn't affect us either way, then let them fight it out.
I'm neutral on OSGi except for the fact that the proponents are as
annoying as proponents for RoR or Eclipse :)
geir
>
> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
>
> Hen
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>>
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this
>> EG.
>>
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>
>
> Have you heard anything back from Felix?
>
> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP issues
> - which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All - then Allow'
> or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like philosophies.
>
> Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
I have not heard any discussion as to the merit of this or otherwise on
Felix. All I know is that Richard Hall, the developer of the code upon
which Felix is based, and a significant Felix committer, is
independently mentioned on the JSR.
Upayavira
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Man, I hope I haven't come off as "Deny All - then Allow". It is
> just that only the conterversial proposals are getting brought up.
>
> I feel that Apache should only support specifications that are
> developed using an open community process and specs that can be
> freely implemented under an Apache license. IMO the Oracle spec
> limits the ability to implement it under an Apache license, and I
> feel that the OSGi spec is rubber stamping a spec created outside of
> the community process.
>
> My guess is that all of these specs will pass the EC anyway, and we
> will participate in them. When is comes to Apache's vote, I don't
> see why we would vote for a specification that doesn't follow those
> points.
Is the JCP really as open as you imply? In reality, if you are not a
member of the JSR EG (and/or an employee of member company/organization)
then you are basically out of luck when it comes to being able to take
part in the "open community process". As far as spec implementability,
that is a non-issue for OSGi since I have been doing it for five years.
-> richard
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that all of these specs will pass the EC anyway, and we
>> will participate in them. When is comes to Apache's vote, I don't see
>> why we would vote for a specification that doesn't follow those points.
>
> Tempted to agree. Why +1 a JSR if it doesn't benefit our
> community/open-source community. So with the IDE one, the ASF don't
> appear to care and then it would come down to whether we think it's good
> for our co-communities at NetBeans, Eclipse and elsewhere - if we think
> they're not being damaged by it, we should abstain.
I have an awful lot of trouble trying to think we represent Eclipse's
interests, because they are very much not like us. I've spent some time
trying to bridge the gap between JCP and Eclipse, and there was mutual
disinterest. I'll try again in the future, but clearly Eclipse has
clear intention to remain independent. As I see it, Eclipse is doing
all it can to be an alternative to the JCP in it's technical domain.
(Which is fine, IMO... The SWT things really drives the Sun people
bananas, btw...)
And NetBeans == Sun, so they are well represented on the JCP. I think
IBM has Eclipse's interests covered for the most part, due to the
dominance of IBM in the Eclipse community and their reliance on it in
major product lines, although I'm sure I'll get flak for saying that.
>
> With this one, we actually have an OSGi implementation so it seems like
> a walk-in if Felix want to join up. Otherwise, we'd abstain.
I don't agree - we certainly will always vote our interest, but the EC
representatives are there for broader purpose than just their own
interests. An abstention is a kind of protest vote, saying to the Java
community (not just the JSR) that we don't support something.
Commercial organizations use it when they have a clear conflict of
interest so they don't want to vote -1 :)
I'm for letting the flowers bloom, unless it's nightshade. (That's a
flower, right?) We can make pointed and snarky comments when we vote,
but just because we don't care and don't see harm, I'd like to be
supportive of JSRs.
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
>> yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP issues -
>> which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All - then Allow' or a
>> 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like philosophies.
>
> Man, I hope I haven't come off as "Deny All - then Allow". It is just that
> only the conterversial proposals are getting brought up.
It doesn't concern me. This list needs people of both philosophies to
drive discussion. The Deny/Allow metaphor is a little harsh as there are 3
lines here and I think your preference sounds like wanting to abstain on
the votes that don't fit our criteria, rather than fight to -1 each one of
them.
> I feel that Apache should only support specifications that are developed
> using an open community process and specs that can be freely implemented
> under an Apache license. IMO the Oracle spec limits the ability to implement
> it under an Apache license, and I feel that the OSGi spec is rubber stamping
> a spec created outside of the community process.
>
> My guess is that all of these specs will pass the EC anyway, and we will
> participate in them. When is comes to Apache's vote, I don't see why we
> would vote for a specification that doesn't follow those points.
Tempted to agree. Why +1 a JSR if it doesn't benefit our
community/open-source community. So with the IDE one, the ASF don't appear
to care and then it would come down to whether we think it's good for our
co-communities at NetBeans, Eclipse and elsewhere - if we think they're
not being damaged by it, we should abstain.
With this one, we actually have an OSGi implementation so it seems like a
walk-in if Felix want to join up. Otherwise, we'd abstain.
Hen
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening
> between yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should
> approach JCP issues - which to a large extent seem to boil down to
> a 'Deny All - then Allow' or a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of
> firewall like philosophies.
Man, I hope I haven't come off as "Deny All - then Allow". It is
just that only the conterversial proposals are getting brought up.
I feel that Apache should only support specifications that are
developed using an open community process and specs that can be
freely implemented under an Apache license. IMO the Oracle spec
limits the ability to implement it under an Apache license, and I
feel that the OSGi spec is rubber stamping a spec created outside of
the community process.
My guess is that all of these specs will pass the EC anyway, and we
will participate in them. When is comes to Apache's vote, I don't
see why we would vote for a specification that doesn't follow those
points.
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>
> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>
> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>
> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the Expert
> Group.
>
> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this EG.
>
> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
> jcp-open@apache.org
Have you heard anything back from Felix?
There seems to be a general philosophical discussion happening between
yourself and Dain each time over how the ASF should approach JCP issues -
which to a large extent seem to boil down to a 'Deny All - then Allow' or
a 'Allow All - then Deny' pair of firewall like philosophies.
Other than that though, not seeing much discussion.
Hen
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote, On 3/1/2006 9:27 AM:
>
>>
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of the
>>> JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber stamping
>>> everyone's outside specs.
>>
>>
>> The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
>> preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
>>
>> And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the purpose
>> here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how OSGi is used
>> in a standard way.
>>
>>>
>>> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts the
>>> community process.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of things,
>> such as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar thing - namely
>> define the official API to work with the technology...
>
>
> Your analogy does not hold. The difference is that OSGi _already_ has a
> Java API spec. WS-* was in need of Java APIs, hence the need for JCP
> participation.
Yes, I realize the difference. Hoever, a difference is that unlike WS*,
there is a two-way relationship here - because if a JSR did JCP-ize the
OSGi interface, it at least should modify the control point for the
technology to where the JCP community has a say in future evolution.
>
> I do not understand where the value add is in bringing in the
> participation of the JCP.
>
Well, it's a good question. The real answer will come from IBM, of course.
The only value I see is that the JCP is a group we know and participate
in, and the OSGi Federation isn't, and we have an apache community
(felix) that is interested in this, as they actually are implementing OSGi.
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <ad...@toolazydogs.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote, On 3/1/2006 9:27 AM:
>
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of the
>> JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber stamping
>> everyone's outside specs.
>
>
> The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
> preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
>
> And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the purpose
> here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how OSGi is used
> in a standard way.
>
>>
>> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts the
>> community process.
>
>
> I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of things,
> such as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar thing - namely
> define the official API to work with the technology...
Your analogy does not hold. The difference is that OSGi _already_ has a
Java API spec. WS-* was in need of Java APIs, hence the need for JCP
participation.
I do not understand where the value add is in bringing in the
participation of the JCP.
Regards,
Alan
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside
>>>> of the JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber
>>>> stamping everyone's outside specs.
>>>
>>> The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
>>> preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
>>>
>>> And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the
>>> purpose here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how
>>> OSGi is used in a standard way.
>>>
>>>> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts
>>>> the community process.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of
>>> things, such as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar
>>> thing - namely define the official API to work with the
>>> technology...
>>>
>>> Given the current state of the community process in the JCP, how
>>> do you see this subverting it?
>> As the US Supreme Court says "I know it when I see it". FWIU,
>> there are only two places where the JCP deferred to an external
>> group CORBA and WebServices. In both cases, these are well
>> established standards bodies, and they the specs are cross
>> language. Again FWIU, OSGi is purely Java focused and was not an
>> established specification group when it started.
>
> Nor is it now, is it?
No offense to the OSGi people, but I would say no. If you walk up to
the average Java developer and ask them if they have heard of the JCP
or W3C, I would expect them to say yep. If you asked about the OSGi
Alliance, I doubt it would be the same level.
>>> Are there other models our EG reps would want to propose?
>> In the case of OSGi, I see no reason for the JCP to map any
>> statement about OSGi. It is outside of the community process. If
>> they want to join the community process. Then I would expect to
>> see the OSGi Alliance to shutdown and we start working on OSGi r5
>> within the JCP.
>
> That would be cool.
>
>> Alternatively, if the JCP is now willing to rubberstamp
>> specifications developed outside of the JCP,
>
> I do think that the rubberstamping has happened before, and I don't
> think that there is any general problem with it. For example,
> that's what the Groovy strategy seems to be - develop outside of
> the JCP's restrictive IP rules in an OSS project, and then throw it
> over the fence when done for rubberstamping. It's not a perfect
> analogy though.
Really? I personally think of Groovy as how specs should work. You
discuss everything publicly, develop the RI and TCK publicly all
under the EG. Then when everything looks good, you put it to the EC
for a vote. Other than the word "publicly" isn't that how all EGs work?
> I believe that there are far more examples of rubber stamping in
> the ME space, but I'm not very conversant in those JSRs.
I think that is a problem. Where is the community in a rubber
stamping process? It just seems counter to open source and I'm not
sure we want to support such specs.
>> I suggest that Apache investigate forming a new spec foundation
>> outside of the JCP that better represents our values. We can
>> then develop specifications with others and bring them
>> to the JCP for rubber stamping. I'm sure this is what everyone
>> else will do now that it is allowed ;)
>
> This has been suggested before, and is always an option :)
>
> I keep hoping someone invents a better, radically different
> approach to standardization then the ways we do it now, in Java and
> elsewhere.
I think what we have in the JCP is workable, but I would like to see
more meritocracy in the EGs. I think this change will make things
worse not better.
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of the
>>> JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber stamping
>>> everyone's outside specs.
>>
>> The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
>> preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
>>
>> And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the purpose
>> here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how OSGi is used
>> in a standard way.
>>
>>> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts the
>>> community process.
>>
>> I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of things,
>> such as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar thing - namely
>> define the official API to work with the technology...
>>
>> Given the current state of the community process in the JCP, how do
>> you see this subverting it?
>
> As the US Supreme Court says "I know it when I see it". FWIU, there are
> only two places where the JCP deferred to an external group CORBA and
> WebServices. In both cases, these are well established standards
> bodies, and they the specs are cross language. Again FWIU, OSGi is
> purely Java focused and was not an established specification group when
> it started.
Nor is it now, is it?
>
>> Are there other models our EG reps would want to propose?
>
> In the case of OSGi, I see no reason for the JCP to map any statement
> about OSGi. It is outside of the community process. If they want to
> join the community process. Then I would expect to see the OSGi
> Alliance to shutdown and we start working on OSGi r5 within the JCP.
That would be cool.
>
> Alternatively, if the JCP is now willing to rubberstamp specifications
> developed outside of the JCP,
I do think that the rubberstamping has happened before, and I don't
think that there is any general problem with it. For example, that's
what the Groovy strategy seems to be - develop outside of the JCP's
restrictive IP rules in an OSS project, and then throw it over the fence
when done for rubberstamping. It's not a perfect analogy though.
I believe that there are far more examples of rubber stamping in the ME
space, but I'm not very conversant in those JSRs.
> I suggest that Apache investigate forming
> a new spec foundation outside of the JCP that better represents our
> values. We can then develop specifications with others and bring them
> to the JCP for rubber stamping. I'm sure this is what everyone else
> will do now that it is allowed ;)
This has been suggested before, and is always an option :)
I keep hoping someone invents a better, radically different approach to
standardization then the ways we do it now, in Java and elsewhere.
geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of
>> the JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber
>> stamping everyone's outside specs.
>
> The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
> preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
>
> And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the
> purpose here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how
> OSGi is used in a standard way.
>
>> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts
>> the community process.
>
> I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of things,
> such as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar thing -
> namely define the official API to work with the technology...
>
> Given the current state of the community process in the JCP, how do
> you see this subverting it?
As the US Supreme Court says "I know it when I see it". FWIU, there
are only two places where the JCP deferred to an external group CORBA
and WebServices. In both cases, these are well established standards
bodies, and they the specs are cross language. Again FWIU, OSGi is
purely Java focused and was not an established specification group
when it started.
> Are there other models our EG reps would want to propose?
In the case of OSGi, I see no reason for the JCP to map any statement
about OSGi. It is outside of the community process. If they want to
join the community process. Then I would expect to see the OSGi
Alliance to shutdown and we start working on OSGi r5 within the JCP.
Alternatively, if the JCP is now willing to rubberstamp
specifications developed outside of the JCP, I suggest that Apache
investigate forming a new spec foundation outside of the JCP that
better represents our values. We can then develop specifications
with others and bring them to the JCP for rubber stamping. I'm sure
this is what everyone else will do now that it is allowed ;)
-dain
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of the
> JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber stamping
> everyone's outside specs.
The answer to the org.osgi question was that yes, the idea is to
preserve the existing namespace, similar to org.omg...
And I don't think that OSGi will shutdown. I think that the purpose
here is to have the JCP produce a statement regarding how OSGi is used
in a standard way.
>
> I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts the
> community process.
I'm not sure what is subverted here. There are a bunch of things, such
as webservices, for which the JCP does a similar thing - namely define
the official API to work with the technology...
Given the current state of the community process in the JCP, how do you
see this subverting it?
Are there other models our EG reps would want to propose?
geir
>
> -dam
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> I find this JSR very confusing. Why is the package name
>>> org.osgi.framework?
>>
>> Reasonable question... I'll ask. We'll probably hear that it's
>> either an oversight, or more - more likely - there to "preserve
>> compatibilty" with existing users of OSGi.
>>
>>> Is this just a rubber stamp for a spec not developed within the JCP?
>>
>> I don't know. It very well could be. I can imagine ways that this
>> could go that would be useful - such as devise a way to do
>> componentization w/ a runtime lifecycle for which OSGi is one
>> implementation - and ways which it would be "less useful" - like
>> rubberstamping an external spec.
>>
>> Now that I just re-read the JSR, looking at the proposed timeline, I
>> think I'll take "rubberstamp for $400", since I can't imagine how much
>> new technical work will get done in the 4 month timeline they are
>> proposing for the whole JSR.
>>
>> I'll ask about that too....
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>> -dain
>>> On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>
>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>
>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>> this EG.
>>>>
>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> geir
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I'm curious if this means that the OSGi spec committee outside of the
JCP will shutdown. Otherwise I expect we will be rubber stamping
everyone's outside specs.
I am concerned about any JSR or any path to a JSR that subverts the
community process.
-dam
On Mar 1, 2006, at 2:52 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> I find this JSR very confusing. Why is the package name
>> org.osgi.framework?
>
> Reasonable question... I'll ask. We'll probably hear that it's
> either an oversight, or more - more likely - there to "preserve
> compatibilty" with existing users of OSGi.
>
>> Is this just a rubber stamp for a spec not developed within the JCP?
>
> I don't know. It very well could be. I can imagine ways that this
> could go that would be useful - such as devise a way to do
> componentization w/ a runtime lifecycle for which OSGi is one
> implementation - and ways which it would be "less useful" - like
> rubberstamping an external spec.
>
> Now that I just re-read the JSR, looking at the proposed timeline,
> I think I'll take "rubberstamp for $400", since I can't imagine how
> much new technical work will get done in the 4 month timeline they
> are proposing for the whole JSR.
>
> I'll ask about that too....
>
> geir
>
>
>> -dain
>> On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>
>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>
>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>
>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in
>>> the Expert Group.
>>>
>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>> this EG.
>>>
>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on jcp-
>>> open@apache.org
>>>
>>> geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I find this JSR very confusing. Why is the package name
> org.osgi.framework?
Reasonable question... I'll ask. We'll probably hear that it's either
an oversight, or more - more likely - there to "preserve compatibilty"
with existing users of OSGi.
> Is this just a rubber stamp for a spec not
> developed within the JCP?
I don't know. It very well could be. I can imagine ways that this
could go that would be useful - such as devise a way to do
componentization w/ a runtime lifecycle for which OSGi is one
implementation - and ways which it would be "less useful" - like
rubberstamping an external spec.
Now that I just re-read the JSR, looking at the proposed timeline, I
think I'll take "rubberstamp for $400", since I can't imagine how much
new technical work will get done in the 4 month timeline they are
proposing for the whole JSR.
I'll ask about that too....
geir
>
> -dain
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>>
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this
>> EG.
>>
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>
>> geir
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I find this JSR very confusing. Why is the package name
org.osgi.framework? Is this just a rubber stamp for a spec not
developed within the JCP?
-dain
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>
> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>
> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>
> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
> Expert Group.
>
> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
> this EG.
>
> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on jcp-
> open@apache.org
>
> geir
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
excellent. Thanks
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
>
> Nope. I will craft an email to felix-dev in a bit.
>
> Enrique
>
>>
>> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>>
>>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>>
>>> Enrique
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>> Expert Group.
>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>> this EG.
>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
Nope. I will craft an email to felix-dev in a bit.
Enrique
>
> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>
>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>
>> Enrique
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>> Expert Group.
>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>> this EG.
>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Philip Fritch <pf...@hitech-assets.com>.
I've mistakenly been added to your email list somehow. Please remove me.
Best regards,
Philip Fritch
Hitech-Assets Inc.
304 N. Meridian, Suite #9
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107
405-604-4872 ext 22
This email cannot be considered Spam as long as we include: Contact
information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in
compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial Email
HR4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph e1A AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the
105th U.S. Congress. We are not responsible for typographical errors. Please
email us back "REMOVE" in the subject line of this email to be removed. This
message is for dealers/resellers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Fritch" <pf...@hitech-assets.com>
To: <jc...@apache.org>; <ge...@pobox.com>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
> I've mistakenly been added to your email list somehow. Please remove me.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Philip Fritch
> Hitech-Assets Inc.
> 304 N. Meridian, Suite #9
> Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107
> 405-604-4872 ext 22
>
>
>
>
> This email cannot be considered Spam as long as we include: Contact
> information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in
> compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial Email
> HR4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph e1A AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the
> 105th U.S. Congress. We are not responsible for typographical errors.
> Please
> email us back "REMOVE" in the subject line of this email to be removed.
> This
> message is for dealers/resellers.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
> To: <jc...@apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:22 PM
> Subject: Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
>
>
>> Ok - I'll assume people are peachy with this.
>>
>> We can try again to get co-representation.
>>
>> We weren't able w/ 277, but I'm always happy to keep hammering at this.
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
>>>
>>> Hi, Geir,
>>>
>>> I did bring this up on felix-dev. Alex Karasulu and I would like to rep
>>> the ASF on JSR 291. We've collaborated enough (Directory, Felix) to
>>> know we can coordinate coverage and make sure this JSR gets the
>>> attention it deserves.
>>>
>>> Enrique
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>>>>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>>>>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enrique
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>>>> this EG.
>>>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>>>> geir
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Philip Fritch <pf...@hitech-assets.com>.
I've mistakenly been added to your email list somehow. Please remove me.
Best regards,
Philip Fritch
Hitech-Assets Inc.
304 N. Meridian, Suite #9
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73107
405-604-4872 ext 22
This email cannot be considered Spam as long as we include: Contact
information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in
compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial Email
HR4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph e1A AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the
105th U.S. Congress. We are not responsible for typographical errors. Please
email us back "REMOVE" in the subject line of this email to be removed. This
message is for dealers/resellers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr" <ge...@pobox.com>
To: <jc...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
> Ok - I'll assume people are peachy with this.
>
> We can try again to get co-representation.
>
> We weren't able w/ 277, but I'm always happy to keep hammering at this.
>
> geir
>
>
> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
>>
>> Hi, Geir,
>>
>> I did bring this up on felix-dev. Alex Karasulu and I would like to rep
>> the ASF on JSR 291. We've collaborated enough (Directory, Felix) to know
>> we can coordinate coverage and make sure this JSR gets the attention it
>> deserves.
>>
>> Enrique
>>
>>>
>>> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>>>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>>>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>>>
>>>> Enrique
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>>> Expert Group.
>>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this
>>>>> EG.
>>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Ok - I'll assume people are peachy with this.
We can try again to get co-representation.
We weren't able w/ 277, but I'm always happy to keep hammering at this.
geir
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
>
> Hi, Geir,
>
> I did bring this up on felix-dev. Alex Karasulu and I would like to rep
> the ASF on JSR 291. We've collaborated enough (Directory, Felix) to
> know we can coordinate coverage and make sure this JSR gets the
> attention it deserves.
>
> Enrique
>
>>
>> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>>
>>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>>
>>> Enrique
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>>> Expert Group.
>>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>>> this EG.
>>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>>> geir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
Hi, Geir,
I did bring this up on felix-dev. Alex Karasulu and I would like to rep
the ASF on JSR 291. We've collaborated enough (Directory, Felix) to
know we can coordinate coverage and make sure this JSR gets the
attention it deserves.
Enrique
>
> Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Hi, Geir et al,
>>
>> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
>> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
>> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>>
>> Enrique
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>>> Expert Group.
>>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
>>> this EG.
>>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>>> jcp-open@apache.org
>>> geir
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
This works for me - have you talked about this in Felix-land?
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi, Geir et al,
>
> I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
> but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
> proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
>
> Enrique
>
>
> On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
>> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
>> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
>> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
>> Expert Group.
>> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on this
>> EG.
>> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
>> jcp-open@apache.org
>> geir
>
>
Re: JSR 291 : OSGi
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Geir et al,
I'd like to volunteer to rep ASF on this JSR. I am not an ASF Member
but I am PPMC for Felix and one of the primary authors of the Felix
proposal. FWIW, I'm also Directory PMC.
Enrique
On 2/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Today a new JSR was officially announced :
> http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=291
> As you can see, this is for OSGi.
> I've told IBM that we support the JSR, and will participate in the
> Expert Group.
> Please volunteer if you are interested in representing the ASF on
> this EG.
> I've CC-ed felix-dev. Please don't crosspost, but discuss on
> jcp-open@apache.org
> geir