You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Arnaud Quiblier <aq...@gmail.com> on 2006/08/11 12:57:53 UTC
OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Hi Felix Team,
I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
passed the OSGi's TCK.
This is really interesting news.
R. Hall wrote :
"Some of the other issues are reasonably self-contained, so if someone
wants to have a crack at them feel free...for the simpler issues I can
help volunteers figure out exactly what needs to be done."
Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
Sincerely,
--
</arnaud>
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by Arnaud Quiblier <aq...@gmail.com>.
Well, if you make me the proposition, I will open a specific thread !!!
Thanks.
Yes, this would be a great one to implement...let me know if you need
> any input.
--
</arnaud>
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
> I choose the issue named FELIX-26, cause it's an improvement (so that
> should
> be quite clear and self-contained). Not tagged "0.8.0", but this
> weights 8
> points through the TCK test.framework.div !!! Not so bad ;-)
>
> To continue ...
Yes, this would be a great one to implement...let me know if you need
any input.
-> richard
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by Arnaud Quiblier <aq...@gmail.com>.
On 8/11/06, Richard S. Hall <he...@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle
> (FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments (FELIX-29).
> I don't have any time table for either of these, but hopefully
> require-bundle will not be that far off.
Those are very major issues, due to the fact that fragment is a strong
requirement of the OSGi Module Layer ...
I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23,
> FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and
> FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
>
> Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you
> have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches if
> needed.
That's done.
I choose the issue named FELIX-26, cause it's an improvement (so that should
be quite clear and self-contained). Not tagged "0.8.0", but this weights 8
points through the TCK test.framework.div !!! Not so bad ;-)
To continue ...
--
</arnaud>
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
This is good news. Thanks!
Regards,
Alan
BJ Hargrave wrote:
> Yes. In fact OSGi has a draft license for this purpose under review. The
> goal is to approve the license by mid September and then the OSGi TCK can
> be licensed to ASF (and other similar orgs).
>
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@us.ibm.com
> Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
>
>
>
> "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>
> 08/11/2006 07:37 PM
> Please respond to
> felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
>
> To
> felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard, I think that I asked this before and maybe there was a reply.
> Is it possible to get the ASF a license to run the tests in a similar
> manner that Sun let's our projects have access to its TCKs?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
>>
>>> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
>>> passed the OSGi's TCK.
>>> This is really interesting news.
>>>
>> Felix does NOT pass the TCK...if it did, there wouldn't be any need to
>> volunteer. :-)
>>
>> Felix is close to passing the TCK for mandatory spec features.
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
>>> Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
>>>
>> The TCK results page lists all of the issues that need to be worked on:
>>
>>
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Felix+OSGi+TCK+Results
>>
>> I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle
>> (FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments
>> (FELIX-29). I don't have any time table for either of these, but
>> hopefully require-bundle will not be that far off.
>>
>> Any of the other issues are fine to consider for implementation.
>>
>>
>>> Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
>>>
>> Issues tagged for "0.8.0" are important if/when we get ready to make a
>> public release of Felix, but they are generally not related to passing
>> the TCK.
>>
>> I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23,
>> FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and
>> FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
>>
>> Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you
>> have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches
>> if needed.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> -> richard
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by BJ Hargrave <ha...@us.ibm.com>.
Yes. In fact OSGi has a draft license for this purpose under review. The
goal is to approve the license by mid September and then the OSGi TCK can
be licensed to ASF (and other similar orgs).
BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
hargrave@us.ibm.com
Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
"Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>
08/11/2006 07:37 PM
Please respond to
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
To
felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Richard, I think that I asked this before and maybe there was a reply.
Is it possible to get the ASF a license to run the tests in a similar
manner that Sun let's our projects have access to its TCKs?
Regards,
Alan
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
>> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
>> passed the OSGi's TCK.
>> This is really interesting news.
>
> Felix does NOT pass the TCK...if it did, there wouldn't be any need to
> volunteer. :-)
>
> Felix is close to passing the TCK for mandatory spec features.
>
>> Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
>> Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
>
> The TCK results page lists all of the issues that need to be worked on:
>
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Felix+OSGi+TCK+Results
>
> I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle
> (FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments
> (FELIX-29). I don't have any time table for either of these, but
> hopefully require-bundle will not be that far off.
>
> Any of the other issues are fine to consider for implementation.
>
>> Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
>
> Issues tagged for "0.8.0" are important if/when we get ready to make a
> public release of Felix, but they are generally not related to passing
> the TCK.
>
> I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23,
> FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and
> FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
>
> Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you
> have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches
> if needed.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -> richard
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Richard, I think that I asked this before and maybe there was a reply.
Is it possible to get the ASF a license to run the tests in a similar
manner that Sun let's our projects have access to its TCKs?
Regards,
Alan
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
>> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
>> passed the OSGi's TCK.
>> This is really interesting news.
>
> Felix does NOT pass the TCK...if it did, there wouldn't be any need to
> volunteer. :-)
>
> Felix is close to passing the TCK for mandatory spec features.
>
>> Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
>> Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
>
> The TCK results page lists all of the issues that need to be worked on:
>
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Felix+OSGi+TCK+Results
>
> I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle
> (FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments
> (FELIX-29). I don't have any time table for either of these, but
> hopefully require-bundle will not be that far off.
>
> Any of the other issues are fine to consider for implementation.
>
>> Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
>
> Issues tagged for "0.8.0" are important if/when we get ready to make a
> public release of Felix, but they are generally not related to passing
> the TCK.
>
> I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23,
> FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and
> FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
>
> Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you
> have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches
> if needed.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -> richard
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
> passed the OSGi's TCK.
> This is really interesting news.
Felix does NOT pass the TCK...if it did, there wouldn't be any need to
volunteer. :-)
Felix is close to passing the TCK for mandatory spec features.
> Yes, I'm a volunteer ...
> Can you give us issues you consider as High Priority ?
The TCK results page lists all of the issues that need to be worked on:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/Felix+OSGi+TCK+Results
I am currently in the process of working on require-bundle
(FELIX-28)...I imagine after that I will look into fragments (FELIX-29).
I don't have any time table for either of these, but hopefully
require-bundle will not be that far off.
Any of the other issues are fine to consider for implementation.
> Must issues tagged "0.8.0" in Felix's JIRA be considered as urgent ?
Issues tagged for "0.8.0" are important if/when we get ready to make a
public release of Felix, but they are generally not related to passing
the TCK.
I would say that the most self-contained issues would be: FELIX-23,
FELIX-26, FELIX-27, and FELIX-32. Perhaps FELIX-31, FELIX-100, and
FELIX-102 wouldn't be too bad either.
Just pick one and look into it...I can answer any questions that you
have and will be more than happy to discuss any potential approaches if
needed.
Good luck.
-> richard
Re: OSGi R4 specification compliance (part 2)
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Hello Arnaud,
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:57 , Arnaud Quiblier wrote:
> I read in a thread named "OSGI R4 specification compliance" that Felix
> passed the OSGi's TCK.
Well, Richard did not actually state that is passes all tests, but he
has run Felix against the TCK with very encouraging results.
Since Richard is the only one who can run the tests, I think he will
have to come up with a list of things that need to be done, but it's
great that you volunteer to help with this!!
Greetings, Marcel