You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Francesco Furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it> on 2005/10/18 12:58:02 UTC
UPnP Base Driver donation
Dear All,
I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work on
OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
The Domoware team is composed by Stefano Lenzi and Matteo Demuru two
very valuable students of the Computer Science course at Pisa University
and me a senior engineering working at ISTI-CNR. Our work is currently
hosted by the ISTI institute but our contributions are on a voluntary
basis only, you can visit it at http://domoware.isti.cnr.it
The base driver is OSGi R3 compliant, the code has recently optimized to
improve the memory footprint but we haven't
never started a software engineering revision.
We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers if
you accept us, and even to share our ideas
and development projects with you. We are very new to this large and
collaborative community, I'm sure we'll try our best to contribute to
Felix success.
We look forward to receiving your opinions
Francesco Furfari
http://www.isti.cnr.it/php-pers/iselpers.php?Furfari+Francesco
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by Matteo Demuru <tw...@tiscali.it>.
Hi All,
I'm the last member of Domoware team, I'm glad to join to felix
project hoping, like my two friends, that our work can contribute to
felix growth !!
Matteo Demuru
Stefano Lenzi wrote:
>Hi All,
> Finally I was able to join to this community. I hope that our work
>can be usefull for the felix project.
>
>Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
>
>
>Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>
>
>>Dear All,
>>I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>>on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>>
>>
>
>[cut]
>
>
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by Stefano Lenzi <ki...@interfree.it>.
Hi All,
Finally I was able to join to this community. I hope that our work
can be usefull for the felix project.
Stefano "Kismet" Lenzi
Francesco Furfari wrote:
> Dear All,
> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
[cut]
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by Francesco Furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it>.
> Does this help? I know I was all over the map in this email due to
> being rushed for time. Hope something made sense :-).
Yes it does, thanks Alex.
I have to study a lot of things ....
I have seen that many information are in web pages, perhaps I'll post
more question in the time to digest them.
francesco
Alex Karasulu ha scritto:
> francesco furfari wrote:
>
>>> If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise them.
>>
>>
>>
>> The first question is about the government of Felix project.
>> How is it ruled the decision process?
>
>
> At the highest level you have a PPMC which is a
> preliminary/perspective/precursor to a PMC once the project graduates
> incubation. A PMC is a project management committee. For more info
> on TLP (Top Level Project) governance you might want to take a look at
> this page here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
>
> The rules of governance are pretty loose. The PMC decides how that
> happens.
> In practice for most projects at the ASF, the PMC is usually quiet.
> Meaning successful communities with good communication rarely need to
> go to the PMC to have it resolve problems. Most decisions are made by
> those volunteers driving the project or subproject. It's very organic
> this way.
>
> Oh and usually every committer on an incubating project is also on the
> project PPMC.
>
>> I mean we are a small group and it is quite simple to take any decision
>> about the development. How it works in Felix?
>
>
> You and other volunteers working on UPnP will be auto governing. The
> doers govern by doing.
>
>> We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
>> related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
>> the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
>> should discuss about the opportunity with the list?
>
>
> You are not mandated to get approval or anything like that but letting
> others know about where you're going might be a good idea. Every
> developer uses their own discretion on what is important to announce
> if they want feedback or others to get involved. The whole point to
> this is the community. If you announce what you are doing and how you
> intend to do it, then existing committers can comment along with
> non-committers that may get involved as contributors to eventually
> become committers.
>
>> or we have the
>> freedom to open a new activity\branch in the repository.
>
>
> Sure of course.
>
>> I understand that when we donate the sw to ASF it is not more our
>> toy (sigh ;) ),
>
>
> :) I understand, its a big leap of faith.
>
>> I would like to understand how we have to relate to
>> the rest of committers, where the autonomy begins and ends ... and the
>> same for the cooperation.
>
>
> It's really simple. Work on your project. Work as an open community
> within this community (not everyone here will be interested in UPnP).
> Others may however be interested and ask questions. They many like to
> get involved. Often people don't just get up and start mucking with
> code they don't have a clue about. There is some form of etiquette.
> For example what do I know about your code? Nothing! I'm not going
> to get up and start committing to it. I will come to you and tell you
> I'm excited and interested. Please show me how I can help you. Even
> though I am a committer I would still give you a patch or show you
> what I'm thinking to get your feedback. I will respect you, your
> knowledge. Having commit right does not entitle me to change the UPnP
> code when I feel like it. Most of us operate in this fashion, and if
> not you can veto a code commit.
>
> Does this help? I know I was all over the map in this email due to
> being rushed for time. Hope something made sense :-).
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by Francesco Furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it>.
> This is a problem that have to face companies or groups that donate
> code to the ASF. They must transfer decisions and discussions
> happening in meeting rooms to the mailing list. This is key to have a
> healthy community that lasts longer than the involvement of a
> particular organisation, and one of the purposes of the incubation phase.
Right, nevertheless I suspect we will continue to use synchronous tools
only for debugging purpose, checking the code together is sometime
better. I agree that any reasoning and decision has to be shared on the
list...
.... as consequence it will force to improve my english ;)
ciao
francesco
Sylvain Wallez ha scritto:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> francesco furfari wrote:
>>
>>> We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
>>> related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
>>> the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
>>> should discuss about the opportunity with the list?
>>
>>
>> You are not mandated to get approval or anything like that but
>> letting others know about where you're going might be a good idea.
>> Every developer uses their own discretion on what is important to
>> announce if they want feedback or others to get involved. The whole
>> point to this is the community. If you announce what you are doing
>> and how you intend to do it, then existing committers can comment
>> along with non-committers that may get involved as contributors to
>> eventually become committers.
>
>
> Very true!
>
> And this is why Apache projects avoid making decisions outside of the
> mailing-list. Sure, it is sometimes more convenient to use IRC or
> other synchronous discussion means, but when this happens, a summary
> must be posted to the list and the decision made there, so that
> everybody is able to understand what happens in order to get involved
> if they want to.
>
> This is a problem that have to face companies or groups that donate
> code to the ASF. They must transfer decisions and discussions
> happening in meeting rooms to the mailing list. This is key to have a
> healthy community that lasts longer than the involvement of a
> particular organisation, and one of the purposes of the incubation phase.
>
> Sylvain
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by Sylvain Wallez <sy...@apache.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> francesco furfari wrote:
>> We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
>> related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
>> the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
>> should discuss about the opportunity with the list?
>
> You are not mandated to get approval or anything like that but letting
> others know about where you're going might be a good idea. Every
> developer uses their own discretion on what is important to announce
> if they want feedback or others to get involved. The whole point to
> this is the community. If you announce what you are doing and how you
> intend to do it, then existing committers can comment along with
> non-committers that may get involved as contributors to eventually
> become committers.
Very true!
And this is why Apache projects avoid making decisions outside of the
mailing-list. Sure, it is sometimes more convenient to use IRC or other
synchronous discussion means, but when this happens, a summary must be
posted to the list and the decision made there, so that everybody is
able to understand what happens in order to get involved if they want to.
This is a problem that have to face companies or groups that donate code
to the ASF. They must transfer decisions and discussions happening in
meeting rooms to the mailing list. This is key to have a healthy
community that lasts longer than the involvement of a particular
organisation, and one of the purposes of the incubation phase.
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
francesco furfari wrote:
>> If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise them.
>
>
> The first question is about the government of Felix project.
> How is it ruled the decision process?
At the highest level you have a PPMC which is a
preliminary/perspective/precursor to a PMC once the project graduates
incubation. A PMC is a project management committee. For more info on
TLP (Top Level Project) governance you might want to take a look at this
page here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
The rules of governance are pretty loose. The PMC decides how that
happens.
In practice for most projects at the ASF, the PMC is usually quiet.
Meaning successful communities with good communication rarely need to go
to the PMC to have it resolve problems. Most decisions are made by
those volunteers driving the project or subproject. It's very organic
this way.
Oh and usually every committer on an incubating project is also on the
project PPMC.
> I mean we are a small group and it is quite simple to take any decision
> about the development. How it works in Felix?
You and other volunteers working on UPnP will be auto governing. The
doers govern by doing.
> We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
> related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
> the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
> should discuss about the opportunity with the list?
You are not mandated to get approval or anything like that but letting
others know about where you're going might be a good idea. Every
developer uses their own discretion on what is important to announce if
they want feedback or others to get involved. The whole point to this
is the community. If you announce what you are doing and how you intend
to do it, then existing committers can comment along with non-committers
that may get involved as contributors to eventually become committers.
> or we have the
> freedom to open a new activity\branch in the repository.
Sure of course.
> I understand that when we donate the sw to ASF it is not more our
> toy (sigh ;) ),
:) I understand, its a big leap of faith.
> I would like to understand how we have to relate to
> the rest of committers, where the autonomy begins and ends ... and the
> same for the cooperation.
It's really simple. Work on your project. Work as an open community
within this community (not everyone here will be interested in UPnP).
Others may however be interested and ask questions. They many like to
get involved. Often people don't just get up and start mucking with
code they don't have a clue about. There is some form of etiquette.
For example what do I know about your code? Nothing! I'm not going to
get up and start committing to it. I will come to you and tell you I'm
excited and interested. Please show me how I can help you. Even though
I am a committer I would still give you a patch or show you what I'm
thinking to get your feedback. I will respect you, your knowledge.
Having commit right does not entitle me to change the UPnP code when I
feel like it. Most of us operate in this fashion, and if not you can
veto a code commit.
Does this help? I know I was all over the map in this email due to
being rushed for time. Hope something made sense :-).
Cheers,
Alex
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
francesco furfari wrote:
> The first question is about the government of Felix project.
> How is it ruled the decision process?
From my understanding (thanks to Enrique), I guess officially while
Felix is in incubation it is the Incubator Project Management Committee
(PMC), but after graduation the Felix PMC will be responsible for making
decisions.
> I mean we are a small group and it is quite simple to take any decision
> about the development. How it works in Felix?
> We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
> related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
> the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
> should discuss about the opportunity with the list? or we have the
> freedom to open a new activity\branch in the repository.
> I understand that when we donate the sw to ASF it is not more our
> toy (sigh ;) ), I would like to understand how we have to relate to
> the rest of committers, where the autonomy begins and ends ... and the
> same for the cooperation.
Ultimately, it is the Felix PMC that will have the final say about what
is or is not included in Felix. So, in this regard there has to be some
trust from the community that the PMC is making decisions based on the
best interest of the project and the community.
However, I don't really think it is this abstract. By and large, the
mailing lists are used to gage enthusiam and community interest. Even in
its short life Felix has already had several discussions and mailing
list votes to decide issues. While only PMC member votes are binding,
all votes are taken into account.
A project is successful because of its community, so the project must
make the community happy otherwise they will go elsewhere.
As far as decision making in individual subprojects within Felix, I
would imagine that you will see people that are more involved in one
area and not another. As such, it is unlikely that subprojects will see
outside pressure. However, participation is encouraged and if such
participation leads to differences of opinion, then we hope that they
will be resolved in an open way on the mailing lists.
-> richard
UPnP Base Driver donation - government
Posted by francesco furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it>.
> If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise them.
The first question is about the government of Felix project.
How is it ruled the decision process?
I mean we are a small group and it is quite simple to take any decision
about the development. How it works in Felix?
We'll be responsible for the UPnP module and we can decide for any
related activity? for instance if we wanted add a bundle for recording
the actions executed by the UPnP Generic Control Point as a script, we
should discuss about the opportunity with the list? or we have the
freedom to open a new activity\branch in the repository.
I understand that when we donate the sw to ASF it is not more our
toy (sigh ;) ), I would like to understand how we have to relate to
the rest of committers, where the autonomy begins and ends ... and the
same for the cooperation.
ff
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>
>
> This is excellent Francesco: we look forward to such contributions. As
> you may already know we intend to grow this community to include
> services besides just the core container.
>
>> The Domoware team is composed by Stefano Lenzi and Matteo Demuru two
>> very valuable students of the Computer Science course at Pisa
>> University and me a senior engineering working at ISTI-CNR. Our work
>> is currently hosted by the ISTI institute but our contributions are
>> on a voluntary basis only, you can visit it at
>> http://domoware.isti.cnr.it
>> The base driver is OSGi R3 compliant, the code has recently optimized
>> to improve the memory footprint but we haven't
>> never started a software engineering revision.
>
>
> This is a very impressive application of OSGi re: the control and
> programming of home appliances. I'm already thinking of the
> possibilities. I have to read up more but I'd love to hear comments
> from others with more OSGi knowledge and experience than I. With 3
> active committers working on Domoware it's more than just a code
> contribution and this is much more preferable since we're about
> community first.
>
>> We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers if
>> you accept us, and even to share our ideas
>> and development projects with you.
>
>
> This is what Felix is for re: sharing of ideas. I look forward to
> working with you. Let's get more feedback from the community. I think
> Domoware and it's committers would make an excellent addition to Felix.
>
>> We are very new to this large and collaborative community, I'm sure
>> we'll try our best to contribute to Felix success.
>
>
> We'll work together to make you comfortable with the dynamics of a large
> community. If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise
> them. I'm sure several people here would help make the transition as
> smooth as possible once the decision is made to accept your generous
> contribution.
>
>> We look forward to receiving your opinions
>
>
> Thank you Francesco ... hopefully we'll get others to chime in so we can
> act decisively.
> Alex
>
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - license
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
francesco furfari wrote:
...
> So I don't care of the movement towards ASL, to be honest I don't
> understand well the clause about the patent right, but I'm not
> interested to do a business ... well but if the business find me ;)
> I guess the problem is to avoid that a subsequent patent on a software
> could limit the using of it, is it right?
Not sure IANAL. However I do know this: the ASF does not want to limit
the ability of companies or individuals to embed, fork or rebrand ASF
software. This is why the ASL gives so much freedom to our users.
Alex
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation - license
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
francesco furfari wrote:
> In my understanding of the Open Source world, for a SME
> who wants base its business on a OS Software it is convenient the
> complete participation to the community effort. That implies that any
> improvement is shared with the community, in order to avoid any fork and
> to continue to assure the quality of the code, checked continuously
> from all the community.
Just to be clear, open source licenses do not prevent forks. Even GPL
cannot stop someone from forking. The only issue is whether or not the
fork must also be released as open source.
> So, in my opinion, if a SME wants to maximize the benefit of any OSS it
> should fully adopt an Open Source Model in its development process and
> the restriction of the LGPL is not so hard in this case.
> We could say that the disappeared restrictions in ASL is only a
> propagandistic slogan (it isn't a criticism) for all the industries that
> don't well understand the OS model.
I wouldn't agree with this assessment, but I am not sure that we want to
get into a licensing debate. :-)
-> richard
UPnP Base Driver donation - license
Posted by francesco furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it>.
I don't know all the legal aspects behind copy-left licenses. We chosen
the LGPL because the modular aspect of the UPnP bundle fits the
purpose of Lesser GPL. The use of the library is not restricted and
limitations are only for the derivative works.
In my understanding of the Open Source world, for a SME
who wants base its business on a OS Software it is convenient the
complete participation to the community effort. That implies that any
improvement is shared with the community, in order to avoid any fork and
to continue to assure the quality of the code, checked continuously
from all the community.
So, in my opinion, if a SME wants to maximize the benefit of any OSS it
should fully adopt an Open Source Model in its development process and
the restriction of the LGPL is not so hard in this case.
We could say that the disappeared restrictions in ASL is only a
propagandistic slogan (it isn't a criticism) for all the industries that
don't well understand the OS model.
ASF can adopt this kind of license because it pay a lot of attention to
the strength of the communities behind a project and perhaps it isn't
relevant the support of external entities.
So I don't care of the movement towards ASL, to be honest I don't
understand well the clause about the patent right, but I'm not
interested to do a business ... well but if the business find me ;)
I guess the problem is to avoid that a subsequent patent on a software
could limit the using of it, is it right? or this is only a European
problem for the "first to file" rule ...
ff
> Perhaps after evaluating some more feedback from this list, it might
be a good idea to switch the license to a BSD compatible license after
consulting with your committers and making sure all contributions are
accounted for ... just a suggestion.
Do you mean that we aren't obliged to adopt ASL in Felix?
ff
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>>
>>
> I just wanted to note that if a contribution is made the license would
> have to be changed to the ASL 2.0. I see now the Domoware license is
> GPL/LGPL (from the main source forge project page here:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/domoware/). However the license change
> would be implied with a software grant to the ASF with sign off from all
> Domoware contributors. After the grant, the software would belong to
> the ASF and it's license would be changed. I wanted to make sure you
> understood the implications of your contribution which you already
> probably do.
> Perhaps after evaluating some more feedback from this list, it might be
> a good idea to switch the license to a BSD compatible license after
> consulting with your committers and making sure all contributions are
> accounted for ... just a suggestion.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>
I just wanted to note that if a contribution is made the license would
have to be changed to the ASL 2.0. I see now the Domoware license is
GPL/LGPL (from the main source forge project page here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/domoware/). However the license change
would be implied with a software grant to the ASF with sign off from all
Domoware contributors. After the grant, the software would belong to
the ASF and it's license would be changed. I wanted to make sure you
understood the implications of your contribution which you already
probably do.
Perhaps after evaluating some more feedback from this list, it might be
a good idea to switch the license to a BSD compatible license after
consulting with your committers and making sure all contributions are
accounted for ... just a suggestion.
Cheers,
Alex
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Yes, I think this is excellent news too. Domoware has been the main
driver for UPnP experimentation for users of Oscar, so it is great to
see it come under the auspices of the Felix project.
-> richard
Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>
>> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>>
>>
>> This is excellent Francesco: we look forward to such contributions.
>> As you may already know we intend to grow this community to include
>> services besides just the core container.
>
> ...
>
> I'm all for accepting this contribution and the 3 individuals as
> committers. UPnP is a key part of OSGi R4 and it will be exciting to
> have an effort related to home automation at the ASF.
>
> Enrique
>
>
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>
> This is excellent Francesco: we look forward to such contributions. As
> you may already know we intend to grow this community to include
> services besides just the core container.
...
I'm all for accepting this contribution and the 3 individuals as
committers. UPnP is a key part of OSGi R4 and it will be exciting to
have an effort related to home automation at the ASF.
Enrique
Re: UPnP --> Felix and OSGi vertical solutions
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
francesco furfari wrote:
> Do you intend concentrate only on using Felix as application container
> for the suite of apache softwares? if the other option is reasonable
> too, is the Apache community able to involve industrial partners to
> support the development in those areas (i.e mobile) ... sorry for the
> ingenuous question
I think it's a very interesting question.
The strength and simplicity of the OSGi framework makes it useful in
many different areas, so I don't think the implementation of the
framework should (or will) make any assumptions about where and how it's
used.
Where this discussion gets interesting is when you start to implement
services. These implementations might be created for different
application domains and for that we need some way of being able to
incorporate multiple implementations for a service.
Greetings, Marcel
Re: UPnP --> Felix and OSGi vertical solutions
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
francesco furfari wrote:
...
> Maybe it's premature talking about the different application domains in
> which fits OSGi platform , I understand that a OSGi R4 compliant
> implementation is the first target of Felix, nevertheless I would like
> to know how (if) do you think to manage the mobile, automotive,
> residential gateway, and home automation field for which several
> sub-projects might be opened.
Really, this is the sort of thing that the Felix project has to grow
into. We need to get out an R4 framework and work on other standard
services such as accepting your UPnP implementation. I think that we
are all open to subprojects in the areas you mention and that, when the
time comes, you or others can propose new subprojects, and, if they are
heavily tied to the OSGi framework, for example, the UPnP, Event
Service, etc, then they would definitely be at home as subprojects of Felix.
So I think your (if) evaluates to 'true' and we'll get to the 'how'.
> Do you intend concentrate only on using Felix as application container
> for the suite of apache softwares? if the other option is reasonable
> too, is the Apache community able to involve industrial partners to
> support the development in those areas (i.e mobile) ... sorry for the
> ingenuous question
We don't intend to do anything that ties Felix to the specific use cases
for Apache software, which, from my perspective, means enterprise
services. I can see personally wanting server-side packaging, such as
installers and daemons, but we will certainly maintain the core
framework as independent of packaging. In short, where Felix is used
depends on the projects that choose to use it.
My understanding is that with regard to industrial partners, in short
the answer is no. Individuals will contribute to Apache projects and,
though behind the scenes individuals have to have funding coming from
somewhere, there are not supposed to be any PR, co-marketing,
partnership, or joint venture agreements, though certainly businesses
promote their use of Apache software in a unilateral manner.
Enrique
Re: UPnP --> Felix and OSGi vertical solutions
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
francesco furfari wrote:
>>> We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers
>>> if you accept us, and even to share our ideas
>>> and development projects with you.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is what Felix is for re: sharing of ideas. I look forward to
>> working with you. Let's get more feedback from the community.
>
>
> Maybe it's premature talking about the different application domains in
> which fits OSGi platform , I understand that a OSGi R4 compliant
> implementation is the first target of Felix, nevertheless I would like
> to know how (if) do you think to manage the mobile, automotive,
> residential gateway, and home automation field for which several
> sub-projects might be opened.
These are all possibilities. Who know what shape things may take in the
future.
> Do you intend concentrate only on using Felix as application container
> for the suite of apache softwares?
No we're not interested in forcing projects interested in OSGi to use
just Felix. Thanks to the specification it really should not make a
difference. However licensing and the ability to bundle/distribute
these containers will certainly factor in. This is one of the reasons
why other projects were so interested in Felix.
> if the other option is reasonable
> too, is the Apache community able to involve industrial partners to
> support the development in those areas (i.e mobile) ... sorry for the
> ingenuous question
Not sure I understand the question completely. Anyone is welcomed to
get involved. Committers and contributions are welcome from anyone or
any organization.
HTH,
Alex
Re: UPnP --> Felix and OSGi vertical solutions
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
francesco furfari wrote:
> Do you intend concentrate only on using Felix as application container
> for the suite of apache softwares? if the other option is reasonable
> too, is the Apache community able to involve industrial partners to
> support the development in those areas (i.e mobile) ... sorry for the
> ingenuous question
I think this is mostly a matter of community interest. Certainly, I will
probably concentrate on the framework since that is what I have been
doing. If the community as a whole is only interested in R4 compliance,
then this is probably the direction things will go. However, if there
are people interested in other directions, then it can go that way too.
I will guess that the community will encourage experimentation. Projects
that have enough community interest can likely become part of Felix,
where ones that don't can be worked on elsewhere, but they are still
relevant.
As far as involving industrial partners, this is something that would be
interesting if it were to happen. As Felix evolves it is possible that
we will attract such attention. Even now, community members are out
there talking with people asking them to get involved, so anything is
possible.
-> richard
UPnP --> Felix and OSGi vertical solutions
Posted by francesco furfari <fr...@isti.cnr.it>.
>> We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers if you accept us, and even to share our ideas
>> and development projects with you.
>
>
> This is what Felix is for re: sharing of ideas. I look forward to working with you. Let's get more feedback from the community.
Maybe it's premature talking about the different application domains in
which fits OSGi platform , I understand that a OSGi R4 compliant
implementation is the first target of Felix, nevertheless I would like
to know how (if) do you think to manage the mobile, automotive,
residential gateway, and home automation field for which several
sub-projects might be opened.
Do you intend concentrate only on using Felix as application container
for the suite of apache softwares? if the other option is reasonable
too, is the Apache community able to involve industrial partners to
support the development in those areas (i.e mobile) ... sorry for the
ingenuous question
ff
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Francesco Furfari wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
>> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
>
>
> This is excellent Francesco: we look forward to such contributions. As
> you may already know we intend to grow this community to include
> services besides just the core container.
>
>> The Domoware team is composed by Stefano Lenzi and Matteo Demuru two
>> very valuable students of the Computer Science course at Pisa
>> University and me a senior engineering working at ISTI-CNR. Our work
>> is currently hosted by the ISTI institute but our contributions are
>> on a voluntary basis only, you can visit it at
>> http://domoware.isti.cnr.it
>> The base driver is OSGi R3 compliant, the code has recently optimized
>> to improve the memory footprint but we haven't
>> never started a software engineering revision.
>
>
> This is a very impressive application of OSGi re: the control and
> programming of home appliances. I'm already thinking of the
> possibilities. I have to read up more but I'd love to hear comments
> from others with more OSGi knowledge and experience than I. With 3
> active committers working on Domoware it's more than just a code
> contribution and this is much more preferable since we're about
> community first.
>
>> We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers if
>> you accept us, and even to share our ideas
>> and development projects with you.
>
>
> This is what Felix is for re: sharing of ideas. I look forward to
> working with you. Let's get more feedback from the community. I think
> Domoware and it's committers would make an excellent addition to Felix.
>
>> We are very new to this large and collaborative community, I'm sure
>> we'll try our best to contribute to Felix success.
>
>
> We'll work together to make you comfortable with the dynamics of a large
> community. If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise
> them. I'm sure several people here would help make the transition as
> smooth as possible once the decision is made to accept your generous
> contribution.
>
>> We look forward to receiving your opinions
>
>
> Thank you Francesco ... hopefully we'll get others to chime in so we can
> act decisively.
> Alex
>
>
Re: UPnP Base Driver donation
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Francesco Furfari wrote:
> Dear All,
> I'm pleased to announce that Domoware team intend to donate his work
> on OSGi-UPnP integration to Felix.
This is excellent Francesco: we look forward to such contributions. As
you may already know we intend to grow this community to include
services besides just the core container.
> The Domoware team is composed by Stefano Lenzi and Matteo Demuru two
> very valuable students of the Computer Science course at Pisa
> University and me a senior engineering working at ISTI-CNR. Our work
> is currently hosted by the ISTI institute but our contributions are
> on a voluntary basis only, you can visit it at
> http://domoware.isti.cnr.it
> The base driver is OSGi R3 compliant, the code has recently optimized
> to improve the memory footprint but we haven't
> never started a software engineering revision.
This is a very impressive application of OSGi re: the control and
programming of home appliances. I'm already thinking of the
possibilities. I have to read up more but I'd love to hear comments
from others with more OSGi knowledge and experience than I. With 3
active committers working on Domoware it's more than just a code
contribution and this is much more preferable since we're about
community first.
> We would like to maintain the code in Felix community as committers if
> you accept us, and even to share our ideas
> and development projects with you.
This is what Felix is for re: sharing of ideas. I look forward to
working with you. Let's get more feedback from the community. I think
Domoware and it's committers would make an excellent addition to Felix.
> We are very new to this large and collaborative community, I'm sure
> we'll try our best to contribute to Felix success.
We'll work together to make you comfortable with the dynamics of a large
community. If you have any questions and/or concerns feel free to raise
them. I'm sure several people here would help make the transition as
smooth as possible once the decision is made to accept your generous
contribution.
> We look forward to receiving your opinions
Thank you Francesco ... hopefully we'll get others to chime in so we can
act decisively.
Alex