You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2006/04/21 15:24:11 UTC
STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
What are the remaining issues that need to be resolved before Felix is ready
to leave the Incubator?
--- Noel
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Sunday 23 April 2006 01:43, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
> > It just means that whatever you release has more standing. It is an
> > official Apache release. More people thus are likely to try it, so
> > you'll get better feedback. I guess that's the point in it.
>
> Yeah, I guess I understood that a little.
>
> What I was wondering, is how this changes our focus? Right now we am
> focusing on creating a release. If we decide to think about preparing
> for graduation, do we stop focusing on that and start focusing on
> something else? If so, what is that something else?
The Incubator PMC has to start a vote on the subject, and if that passes, and
Felix is targeting top level, then a Board Resolution proposal has to be
crafted for the ASF Board to decide "yes"/"no" on, and such proposal would
include all the details of infrastructure resource required, new or changed.
Other details includes having the STATUS file up to date, eventually moving
the codebase from /repos/asf/incubator/felix to /repos/asf/felix, and so
forth.
The main focus now would be to see when is the appropriate Board meeting,
which should be targetted.
Cheers
Niclas
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@xs4all.nl>.
As far as I see it, we now have a codebase that is ready for a "0.8" release.
To release it officially in a way that is both useful for other Apache
projects (which need it to be a non-incubator release) and other projects
(which need a stable release) we should graduate first. So I agree with
Richard that if our mentors think we're ready too, we should go for it. :)
Greetings, Marcel
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Ok, I am fine for trying to target graduation for the reasons Alex has
outlined.
My main hesitation was that Felix is in a pretty stable state right now,
so I thought it would be worthwhile to get a snapshot released to help
grow the community for those who find SVN to be a barrier for
experimentation. As part of this, I was basically in feature-freeze mode
for the framework, since I didn't want to start hacking some new
features that would make it unstable before trying to do a public release.
So, we can just forget about a release now altogether and just keep
progressing on new features. Another possibility, I guess, is to make a
svn branch of the current stable state of the framework that could be
the basis of a 0.8.0 release after graduation.
Of course, it seems that much of this depends on the time frame and
actual possibility of graduation too. We have to defer to our mentors to
know whether or not we are in a state where we should actually push for
graduation. Also, we need guidance to know what we need to do to prepare
for it as well.
-> richard
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>> Upayavira wrote:
>>> It just means that whatever you release has more standing. It is an
>>> official Apache release. More people thus are likely to try it, so
>>> you'll get better feedback. I guess that's the point in it.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess I understood that a little.
>>
>> What I was wondering, is how this changes our focus? Right now we am
>> focusing on creating a release. If we decide to think about preparing
>> for graduation, do we stop focusing on that and start focusing on
>> something else? If so, what is that something else?
> The incubator release process is more involved.
> =================================
>
> Well targeting an incubator exit does not necessarily change your
> primary focus of getting a release out. Graduating first may make it
> a bit easier to get that release out since our PMC (once formed) would
> vote on the matter rather than the incubator PMC. Being closer to the
> code and understanding the functionality I think this community can
> make a better quicker evaluation than the incubator PMC.
>
>
> Graduation will delay an initial release but not by much.
> ========================================
>
> Graduation may however delay a release a bit since we would have to
> wait until the next board meeting to present our proposal as a
> resolution for the board to ratify. Again as Upayavira stated, the
> value of your release after graduation would be greater than if you
> did release from the incubator. If there is some doubt we can always
> just take a vote on what to do here. Also you can still focus on
> tying up loose ends for a release even if we do shoot for an incubator
> exit.
>
> Either way in the grand scheme of things I don't think there will be a
> net difference to Felix in the long term. Personally I don't think
> it's worth the effort now to release if the release is not an official
> Apache endorsed product. I'd keep working on taking care of loose
> ends while trying to graduate this project. Those who want to build
> with Felix can still do that using sources from the repository and can
> await graduation then shortly there after an official release which
> will be imminent.
>
> Other projects cannot *easily* use an unofficial incubator release.
> ==============================================
>
> Also I'm a bit biased here because we at Directory would like to use
> this release (official release hopefully) to release a Felix based
> OSGi version of ApacheDS in the coming few months. Otherwise we have
> to start long threads on the incubator list discussing the legal
> aspects of whether or not we can release ApacehDS with dependencies on
> an incubator release of Felix. No project has yet released a product
> based on an incubator release of another dependent project so it's
> uncharted territory which would require a good amount of discussion.
> Also the outcome is undefined since this is a relatively new situation
> for the incubator to establish policies around. The incubator release
> will take time and so will this conversation. Graduating Felix first
> then releasing it would be a much clearer path for those who wish to
> build upon this initial Felix release. This shows just how important
> an Apache endorsed release is verses an incubator release.
>
> Alex
>
>
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Upayavira wrote:
>> It just means that whatever you release has more standing. It is an
>> official Apache release. More people thus are likely to try it, so
>> you'll get better feedback. I guess that's the point in it.
>
> Yeah, I guess I understood that a little.
>
> What I was wondering, is how this changes our focus? Right now we am
> focusing on creating a release. If we decide to think about preparing
> for graduation, do we stop focusing on that and start focusing on
> something else? If so, what is that something else?
The incubator release process is more involved.
=================================
Well targeting an incubator exit does not necessarily change your
primary focus of getting a release out. Graduating first may make it a
bit easier to get that release out since our PMC (once formed) would
vote on the matter rather than the incubator PMC. Being closer to the
code and understanding the functionality I think this community can make
a better quicker evaluation than the incubator PMC.
Graduation will delay an initial release but not by much.
========================================
Graduation may however delay a release a bit since we would have to wait
until the next board meeting to present our proposal as a resolution for
the board to ratify. Again as Upayavira stated, the value of your
release after graduation would be greater than if you did release from
the incubator. If there is some doubt we can always just take a vote on
what to do here. Also you can still focus on tying up loose ends for a
release even if we do shoot for an incubator exit.
Either way in the grand scheme of things I don't think there will be a
net difference to Felix in the long term. Personally I don't think it's
worth the effort now to release if the release is not an official Apache
endorsed product. I'd keep working on taking care of loose ends while
trying to graduate this project. Those who want to build with Felix can
still do that using sources from the repository and can await graduation
then shortly there after an official release which will be imminent.
Other projects cannot *easily* use an unofficial incubator release.
==============================================
Also I'm a bit biased here because we at Directory would like to use
this release (official release hopefully) to release a Felix based OSGi
version of ApacheDS in the coming few months. Otherwise we have to
start long threads on the incubator list discussing the legal aspects of
whether or not we can release ApacehDS with dependencies on an incubator
release of Felix. No project has yet released a product based on an
incubator release of another dependent project so it's uncharted
territory which would require a good amount of discussion. Also the
outcome is undefined since this is a relatively new situation for the
incubator to establish policies around. The incubator release will take
time and so will this conversation. Graduating Felix first then
releasing it would be a much clearer path for those who wish to build
upon this initial Felix release. This shows just how important an
Apache endorsed release is verses an incubator release.
Alex
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
> It just means that whatever you release has more standing. It is an
> official Apache release. More people thus are likely to try it, so
> you'll get better feedback. I guess that's the point in it.
Yeah, I guess I understood that a little.
What I was wondering, is how this changes our focus? Right now we am
focusing on creating a release. If we decide to think about preparing
for graduation, do we stop focusing on that and start focusing on
something else? If so, what is that something else?
-> richard
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>>> I think this should be priority number one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just keep in mind that this is not the Incubator's priority.
>>> Releases can
>>> be sanctioned, but the only reason why we permit them at all is to
>>> help with
>>> community building. And I observe that a number of folks are saying
>>> that
>>> they won't adopt the code while it is in the Incubator, which is just
>>> fine
>>> with us, so you might get more bang for the buck doing a post-Incubation
>>> release.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Noel here. If the community had growth issues I'd push
>> for a release but this community is growing and healthy. A release
>> from the incubator requires special considerations and may lessen the
>> value of your release since technically it's not an official ASF
>> product until the podling exits the incubator.
>
> Well, you guys have more Apache experience than I do, so I am more than
> willing to defer to your judgment. But what does this really mean? How
> does this change our focus? No matter what, getting a release is still a
> priority for me.
It just means that whatever you release has more standing. It is an
official Apache release. More people thus are likely to try it, so
you'll get better feedback. I guess that's the point in it.
Upayavira
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>>> I think this should be priority number one.
>>>
>>
>> Just keep in mind that this is not the Incubator's priority.
>> Releases can
>> be sanctioned, but the only reason why we permit them at all is to
>> help with
>> community building. And I observe that a number of folks are saying
>> that
>> they won't adopt the code while it is in the Incubator, which is just
>> fine
>> with us, so you might get more bang for the buck doing a post-Incubation
>> release.
>>
>
> I agree with Noel here. If the community had growth issues I'd push
> for a release but this community is growing and healthy. A release
> from the incubator requires special considerations and may lessen the
> value of your release since technically it's not an official ASF
> product until the podling exits the incubator.
Well, you guys have more Apache experience than I do, so I am more than
willing to defer to your judgment. But what does this really mean? How
does this change our focus? No matter what, getting a release is still a
priority for me.
-> richard
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>
>> I must say that I have been spending a lot of time worrying
>> about us getting a first public release of Felix out the
>> door and I would like to see that happen ASAP.
>>
>
>
>> I think this should be priority number one.
>>
>
> Just keep in mind that this is not the Incubator's priority. Releases can
> be sanctioned, but the only reason why we permit them at all is to help with
> community building. And I observe that a number of folks are saying that
> they won't adopt the code while it is in the Incubator, which is just fine
> with us, so you might get more bang for the buck doing a post-Incubation
> release.
>
I agree with Noel here. If the community had growth issues I'd push for
a release but this community is growing and healthy. A release from the
incubator requires special considerations and may lessen the value of
your release since technically it's not an official ASF product until
the podling exits the incubator.
Alex
RE: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> I must say that I have been spending a lot of time worrying
> about us getting a first public release of Felix out the
> door and I would like to see that happen ASAP.
> I think this should be priority number one.
Just keep in mind that this is not the Incubator's priority. Releases can
be sanctioned, but the only reason why we permit them at all is to help with
community building. And I observe that a number of folks are saying that
they won't adopt the code while it is in the Incubator, which is just fine
with us, so you might get more bang for the buck doing a post-Incubation
release.
--- Noel
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> What are the remaining issues that need to be resolved before Felix
>> is ready
>> to leave the Incubator?
>>
>
> Honestly I cannot see any red light stopping graduation. The
> community is gelling well. New users are appearing every week. All
> IP issues has been vetted. The Eclipse Foundation has released the
> framework APIs as ASL.
Of course, we mean the OSGi Alliance has released the APIs under ASL...
> There are multiple people working on the core framework and the
> various services that have been contributed. The PPMC is showing
> signs of being autonomous by making it's own decisions on policy.
> Furthermore I'm seeing discussions all over about NOT using Felix just
> because it's under incubation: people are falling back to Oscar which
> is now I guess ~year behind Felix. I think the time is right for
> starting the graduation process which in it self may take a bit of time.
>
> Perhaps the community may want to get a few more services contributed
> before attempting graduation?
>
> I would feel comfortable with an incubator exist especially with the
> number of members that would be there to help provide guidance for the
> newly formed TLP. There are many other TLPs interested in using Felix
> and we're all anxiously awaiting it's graduation although without
> forcing the matter.
>
> Does anyone else have more thoughts/opinions on this topic?
I think that would be great and all, but I must say that I have been
spending a lot of time worrying about us getting a first public release
of Felix out the door and I would like to see that happen ASAP.
I think this should be priority number one.
The list of issues that I consider to be blockers for a 0.8.0 public
release is actually quite small and actually some of them are not even
completely necessary. Unfortunately, many of them are installer related
and I know that Alex (our resident installer expert) is really in a bind
for time right now. This might mean that we should remove some of the
current blocker issues that are installer related until the next release.
In short, my opinion is that we should get a public release under our
belt before any graduation attempt. I think that the release process
will be a beneficial learning experience that will better prepare us for
eventual graduation.
And more importantly, I want to people to be able to easily download
Felix and starting using it and giving us feedback.
-> richard
Re: Declarative Services
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
This is definitely excellent news and should provide a good jump start
for a complete DS impl, thanks a lot for getting this going.
We need to start thinking about how we want to hook into the
framework...I will start burning some cycles on that.
-> richard
Humberto Cervantes wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to let everyone know that I committed an initial, but
> incomplete version of the Service Component runtime for Felix. This
> runtime is derived from the Service Binder's code. At this point, the
> runtime parses the Declarative Service's descriptor and is capable of
> creating immediate and delayed components (factories are not yet
> supported though).
>
> Since we have not decided on a hook for Felix to get bundle contexts,
> to use it you must specify a generic activator for your bundle
> activator, but it is no longer necessary to create a subclass as it
> was done with the ServiceBinder. You simply need to put the following
> Bundle-Activator entry in the manifest:
>
> Bundle-Activator: org.apache.felix.scr.GenericActivator
>
> This will change in the future once we get the framework hook figured
> out.
>
> You can find under the root directory a file named 'todolist.txt'
> which lists the main aspects which haven't been implemented yet.
>
> Please be aware that this is a very preliminary version that still
> needs a lot of improvement and testing. Any contributions from others
> are certainly welcome.
>
>
>
> Humberto
>
Re: NLOG4J, Declarative Services, and System out
Posted by Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx>.
Hello John,
This is probably a bug, however I don't understand why it may be
happening. Currently trace and error messages are enabled by default and
they are sent to the console using System.out. Traces and errors are
centralized on the trace() and error() methods of the GenericActivator
to facilitate a future transition towards a more appropritate logging
mechanism. This is the same as it was in the Service Binder and I have
just checked the code of the SB available in the repository to see if it
has been changed to use something else for its logs, but it hasn't. In
the examples I am using to test, traces are showing fine...
I will try to give it a look this weekend.
Regards,
Humberto
John E. Conlon escribió:
> I am using SLF4J for logging with my felix bundles. To do this I utilize
> a logging bundle that wraps NLOG4J and jcl104-over-slf4j and declares
> the exportPackage element as:
> <exportPackage>org.apache.commons.logging;version=1.0.0,org.slf4j;version=1.2.24,org.apache.log4j</exportPackage>
>
> Started experimenting with the new Declarative Services implementation
> today and notice some interesting differences from the serviceBinder.
>
> After I made the switch I noticed that my NLOG4J infrastructure was no
> longer outputting log messages to the console. So I tried to just send
> to standard out with System.out.print, but that would not work either.
>
> Is it a feature or bug in the SCR??
>
> cheers,
> John
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx>
Web: http://www.humbertocervantes.net
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa,
San Rafael Atlixco Nº 186, Col. Vicentina, C.P. 09340
Delegación Iztapalapa. Distrito Federal, Mexico
Tel: (52) 55 5804 4634 ext 212
------------------------------------------------------
NLOG4J, Declarative Services, and System out
Posted by "John E. Conlon" <jc...@verticon.com>.
I am using SLF4J for logging with my felix bundles. To do this I utilize
a logging bundle that wraps NLOG4J and jcl104-over-slf4j and declares
the exportPackage element as:
<exportPackage>org.apache.commons.logging;version=1.0.0,org.slf4j;version=1.2.24,org.apache.log4j</exportPackage>
Started experimenting with the new Declarative Services implementation
today and notice some interesting differences from the serviceBinder.
After I made the switch I noticed that my NLOG4J infrastructure was no
longer outputting log messages to the console. So I tried to just send
to standard out with System.out.print, but that would not work either.
Is it a feature or bug in the SCR??
cheers,
John
Re: Declarative Services
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
On 4/21/06, Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to let everyone know that I committed an initial, but
> incomplete version of the Service Component runtime for Felix. ...
This is great news! I just built and installed it in Felix. I will
migrate some bundles currently using Service Binder and give some
feedback.
I will open 2 issues that I hope to address myself:
1) Update the "spellcheckservice" examples that currently use Service
Binder to use SCR.
2) Update Service Binder to use kxml 2.2.2.
Enrique
Re: Declarative Services
Posted by Enrique Rodriguez <en...@gmail.com>.
On 4/21/06, Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wanted to let everyone know that I committed an initial, but
> incomplete version of the Service Component runtime for Felix ...
FYI, I added support for "Service-Component" to the Felix M2 Plugin.
Enrique
Declarative Services
Posted by Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx>.
Hello everyone,
I wanted to let everyone know that I committed an initial, but
incomplete version of the Service Component runtime for Felix. This
runtime is derived from the Service Binder's code. At this point, the
runtime parses the Declarative Service's descriptor and is capable of
creating immediate and delayed components (factories are not yet
supported though).
Since we have not decided on a hook for Felix to get bundle contexts, to
use it you must specify a generic activator for your bundle activator,
but it is no longer necessary to create a subclass as it was done with
the ServiceBinder. You simply need to put the following Bundle-Activator
entry in the manifest:
Bundle-Activator: org.apache.felix.scr.GenericActivator
This will change in the future once we get the framework hook figured out.
You can find under the root directory a file named 'todolist.txt' which
lists the main aspects which haven't been implemented yet.
Please be aware that this is a very preliminary version that still needs
a lot of improvement and testing. Any contributions from others are
certainly welcome.
Humberto
--
------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Cervantes <hc...@xanum.uam.mx>
Web: http://www.humbertocervantes.net
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa,
San Rafael Atlixco Nº 186, Col. Vicentina, C.P. 09340
Delegación Iztapalapa. Distrito Federal, Mexico
Tel: (52) 55 5804 4634 ext 212
------------------------------------------------------
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
> Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Walker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> We would like to move our company's product codebase from using Oscar
>>>> to Felix. I wouldn't say having an "incubator" status is exactly a
>>>> barrier to this, but it would add more weight to our process if it
>>>> had (or was soon to) come out of incubator status.
>>>>
>>> The first step in my opinion would be to have a roadmap towards an
>>> initial release (all the way up to what we can call "1.0").
>>>
>>> With this in place (and 0.8 out the door) I feel we should try to go
>>> out of incubation.
>>>
>> +1
>>
>
> That is fair enough, if that is what people want. But incubation has
> nothing to do with releases. Incubation wants to see that (a) IP issues
> are all correct and (b) the community and PPMC are functioning well.
>
> Actually, to the best of my knowledge, we are pretty much there on both.
>
We could argue that how do we know we are functioning well until we get
a release out the door. :-)
> However, if we would prefer to wait until a release is done, that is
> fair enough.
We are so very close to a public release...notice that most of the
blocker issues that I assigned to the release are mostly installer
improvements and ancillary stuff like that. It is not a major delay to
get this first release out, I don't think...and we might be forced to
trim this list anyway, since Alex (a.k.a. installer guru) is super busy
right now.
-> richard
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> Rob Walker wrote:
>>
>>> We would like to move our company's product codebase from using Oscar
>>> to Felix. I wouldn't say having an "incubator" status is exactly a
>>> barrier to this, but it would add more weight to our process if it
>>> had (or was soon to) come out of incubator status.
>>
>> The first step in my opinion would be to have a roadmap towards an
>> initial release (all the way up to what we can call "1.0").
>>
>> With this in place (and 0.8 out the door) I feel we should try to go
>> out of incubation.
>
> +1
That is fair enough, if that is what people want. But incubation has
nothing to do with releases. Incubation wants to see that (a) IP issues
are all correct and (b) the community and PPMC are functioning well.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, we are pretty much there on both.
However, if we would prefer to wait until a release is done, that is
fair enough.
Upayavira
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
Marcel Offermans wrote:
> Rob Walker wrote:
>
>> We would like to move our company's product codebase from using Oscar
>> to Felix. I wouldn't say having an "incubator" status is exactly a
>> barrier to this, but it would add more weight to our process if it
>> had (or was soon to) come out of incubator status.
>
> The first step in my opinion would be to have a roadmap towards an
> initial release (all the way up to what we can call "1.0").
>
> With this in place (and 0.8 out the door) I feel we should try to go
> out of incubation.
+1
-> richard
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Rob Walker wrote:
> We would like to move our company's product codebase from using Oscar
> to Felix. I wouldn't say having an "incubator" status is exactly a
> barrier to this, but it would add more weight to our process if it
> had (or was soon to) come out of incubator status.
The first step in my opinion would be to have a roadmap towards an
initial release (all the way up to what we can call "1.0").
With this in place (and 0.8 out the door) I feel we should try to go out
of incubation.
Greetings, Marcel
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Rob Walker <ro...@ascert.com>.
We would like to move our company's product codebase from using Oscar to
Felix. I wouldn't say having an "incubator" status is exactly a barrier
to this, but it would add more weight to our process if it had (or was
soon to) come out of incubator status.
-- Rob Walker
Alex Karasulu wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> What are the remaining issues that need to be resolved before Felix
>> is ready
>> to leave the Incubator?
>>
>
>
> Honestly I cannot see any red light stopping graduation. The
> community is gelling well. New users are appearing every week. All
> IP issues has been vetted. The Eclipse Foundation has released the
> framework APIs as ASL. There are multiple people working on the core
> framework and the various services that have been contributed. The
> PPMC is showing signs of being autonomous by making it's own decisions
> on policy. Furthermore I'm seeing discussions all over about NOT
> using Felix just because it's under incubation: people are falling
> back to Oscar which is now I guess ~year behind Felix. I think the
> time is right for starting the graduation process which in it self may
> take a bit of time.
>
> Perhaps the community may want to get a few more services contributed
> before attempting graduation?
>
> I would feel comfortable with an incubator exist especially with the
> number of members that would be there to help provide guidance for the
> newly formed TLP. There are many other TLPs interested in using Felix
> and we're all anxiously awaiting it's graduation although without
> forcing the matter.
>
> Does anyone else have more thoughts/opinions on this topic?
>
> Alex
>
--
Ascert - Taking systems to the Edge
robw@ascert.com
+44 (0)20 7488 3470
www.ascert.com
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
BJ Hargrave wrote:
> Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote on 2006-04-21 10:45:04 AM:
>
>
>> The Eclipse Foundation has released the framework APIs as
>> ASL.
>>
>
> A minor correction: It was the OSGi Alliance that released the APIs under
> Apache License.
>
>
Darn it. I knew that and kept typing otherwise ... sorry about that BJ.
Alex
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by BJ Hargrave <ha...@us.ibm.com>.
Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote on 2006-04-21 10:45:04 AM:
> The Eclipse Foundation has released the framework APIs as
> ASL.
A minor correction: It was the OSGi Alliance that released the APIs under
Apache License.
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
Re: STATUS vis-a-vis Incubation?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What are the remaining issues that need to be resolved before Felix is ready
> to leave the Incubator?
>
Honestly I cannot see any red light stopping graduation. The community
is gelling well. New users are appearing every week. All IP issues has
been vetted. The Eclipse Foundation has released the framework APIs as
ASL. There are multiple people working on the core framework and the
various services that have been contributed. The PPMC is showing signs
of being autonomous by making it's own decisions on policy.
Furthermore I'm seeing discussions all over about NOT using Felix just
because it's under incubation: people are falling back to Oscar which is
now I guess ~year behind Felix. I think the time is right for starting
the graduation process which in it self may take a bit of time.
Perhaps the community may want to get a few more services contributed
before attempting graduation?
I would feel comfortable with an incubator exist especially with the
number of members that would be there to help provide guidance for the
newly formed TLP. There are many other TLPs interested in using Felix
and we're all anxiously awaiting it's graduation although without
forcing the matter.
Does anyone else have more thoughts/opinions on this topic?
Alex