You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by Clement Escoffier <cl...@gmail.com> on 2009/03/27 12:16:11 UTC
ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Hi,
Just a small mail to report a little bit what was discussed in the
Apache Felix BOF:
30 people attend to the BOF. From the Felix team, Marcel O, Carsten Z,
Felix M, Clement E were there.
Several topics were addressed such as:
- Why choosing Felix instead of Equinox: the license difference is not
a killer argument. The main questions are: is Felix enough mature,
what about the compliance, support, services .... ?
- How to start with Felix: a technical perspective: Carsten's talk
describe OSGi concepts but made a small overview of the tools. It
seems that guideline has to be define to help people to start (design,
tools, compilation....). For example, most people ignore that BND is
also usable with Ant.
- What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all
bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party
libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project.
Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating
a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a
repository for existing bundles?
Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the
required "features/capabilities/profiles".
Several possible donations were also discussed:
- Guillaume Nodet has developed several services in the service mix
project such as the jndi service, transaction service and also a
extended "file install".
- Marcel Offermans is going to present an Ant build system to build
OSGi applications as well as propose an Apache project for a
provisioning server.
The next Felix release was also addressed. Apache Sling wait for it as
they are relying on the 1.0.4 version right now. Karl is committed to
achieve the release within two weeks :-)
Regards,
Clement
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
2009/3/28 Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>:
> Marcel Offermans wrote:
> >> - What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all
>>> bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party
>>> libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project.
>>> Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating
>>> a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a
>>> repository for existing bundles?
>>
>> It probably makes sense to extend this beyond a plain OBR, since that
>> still won't allow "humans" to browse the repository and really learn
>> about the different components in there. We need something that really
>> helps the user, explaining the bundle, etc.
>>
> Yepp - first, I think that we could combine this afford with the
> distribution idea (from below). Like a one stop shop for people
> interested in OSGi - and get them up to speed in no time.
> I'm planning to have a look what the plans for Archiva are and if I can
> help out there - i've some vague ideas atm how to add support, but not
> concrete enough to write them down :)
>
>>> Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the
>>> required "features/capabilities/profiles".
>>
>> Just a distribution where Felix starts up with all the bundles
>> installed, running stuff like webconsole out of the box, that is a good
>> starting point for people to start developing their own stuff.
>>
> We should definitly team up with the ServiceMix people and the Sling
> guys :) Both offer already a distributions. I think we should start a
> discussion about this soon.
Agreed. I think other apache projects could benefit from such a ready to use
container (ActiveMQ, DS, James ...)
>
>>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>>> provisioning server.
>>
>> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about
>> this, so I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a
>> week or two. Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
> Me, me, me :)
>
> I could a lot of complaints from various people about our documentation
> (or lack of docs); while I guess that this is always a problem which is
> not that easily solvable, most of these people were reading the
> "embedding felix" documentation which seems to be incomplete (haven't
> looked at it yet). No, fixing the docs is one point, but I think even as
> interesting here is that out of a sudden many people were interested in
> getting Felix running for their projects. So I think this is another
> indication that providing a distribution (which might also be easily
> embeddable like the Sling stuff we have) is of high interest.
>
> The other point was that we don't provide the examples as a download.
> People are forced to use svn and maven just to get an example running.
> So I guess we should think about releasing the examples.
>
> Carsten
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> - What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all
>> bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party
>> libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project.
>> Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating
>> a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a
>> repository for existing bundles?
>
> It probably makes sense to extend this beyond a plain OBR, since that
> still won't allow "humans" to browse the repository and really learn
> about the different components in there. We need something that really
> helps the user, explaining the bundle, etc.
>
Yepp - first, I think that we could combine this afford with the
distribution idea (from below). Like a one stop shop for people
interested in OSGi - and get them up to speed in no time.
I'm planning to have a look what the plans for Archiva are and if I can
help out there - i've some vague ideas atm how to add support, but not
concrete enough to write them down :)
>> Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the
>> required "features/capabilities/profiles".
>
> Just a distribution where Felix starts up with all the bundles
> installed, running stuff like webconsole out of the box, that is a good
> starting point for people to start developing their own stuff.
>
We should definitly team up with the ServiceMix people and the Sling
guys :) Both offer already a distributions. I think we should start a
discussion about this soon.
>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>> provisioning server.
>
> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about
> this, so I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a
> week or two. Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
Me, me, me :)
I could a lot of complaints from various people about our documentation
(or lack of docs); while I guess that this is always a problem which is
not that easily solvable, most of these people were reading the
"embedding felix" documentation which seems to be incomplete (haven't
looked at it yet). No, fixing the docs is one point, but I think even as
interesting here is that out of a sudden many people were interested in
getting Felix running for their projects. So I think this is another
indication that providing a distribution (which might also be easily
embeddable like the Sling stuff we have) is of high interest.
The other point was that we don't provide the examples as a download.
People are forced to use svn and maven just to get an example running.
So I guess we should think about releasing the examples.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Marcel Offermans schrieb:
>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>> provisioning server.
>
> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about
> this, so I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a
> week or two. Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
I would like to join, too.
Like others, I would think that putting this into the Incubator first is
the best option, since it also allows to more easily add people not
currently being ASF committers. In addition trasnferring IP is probably
also simpler.
Regards
Felix
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Filippo Diotalevi <fi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Marcel Offermans
<ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>> provisioning server.
>
> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about this, so
> I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week or two.
> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
Your proposal looks very promising, I wish it was accepted... today.
Count me in if you need any help/beta testing.
--
Filippo Diotalevi
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>.
On 3/27/09 1:33 PM, clement escoffier wrote:
> 2009/3/27 Marcel Offermans<ma...@luminis.nl>
>> Our users are telling us they want a full R4.1 implementation (this is one
>> of the things I've been hearing for a long time now), so I think we should
>> make an effort to get to that point.
>>
>
>
> Exactly, I forget to mention that. They definitely want the compliance and
> additional services. However, I know that Rick is working hard to get the
> fragments. Is it the last missing core functionality?
For R4.1, the main features are fragments and lazy activation (there is
security, too, but less important). Once we get the 1.6 release out, I
have the following priorities:
1. Some performance issues.
2. Lazy activation.
3. Fragments.
No timeline on these, but that is the order in which I will attack them
along with everything else.
-> richard
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by clement escoffier <cl...@gmail.com>.
2009/3/27 Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>
> Great summary, Clement! I'd like to elaborate on some of these points.
I send the mail for that (I didn't see you today ???)
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:16 , Clement Escoffier wrote:
>
> Several topics were addressed such as:
>> - Why choosing Felix instead of Equinox: the license difference is not
>> a killer argument. The main questions are: is Felix enough mature,
>> what about the compliance, support, services .... ?
>>
>
> Our users are telling us they want a full R4.1 implementation (this is one
> of the things I've been hearing for a long time now), so I think we should
> make an effort to get to that point.
Exactly, I forget to mention that. They definitely want the compliance and
additional services. However, I know that Rick is working hard to get the
fragments. Is it the last missing core functionality?
Regards,
Clement
>
> - What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all
>> bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party
>> libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project.
>> Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating
>> a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a
>> repository for existing bundles?
>>
>
> It probably makes sense to extend this beyond a plain OBR, since that still
> won't allow "humans" to browse the repository and really learn about the
> different components in there. We need something that really helps the user,
> explaining the bundle, etc.
>
> Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the
>> required "features/capabilities/profiles".
>>
>
> Just a distribution where Felix starts up with all the bundles installed,
> running stuff like webconsole out of the box, that is a good starting point
> for people to start developing their own stuff.
>
> - Marcel Offermans is going to present an Ant build system to build
>> OSGi applications
>>
>
> Noel Bergman specifically was very interested in this, but I think it would
> be good if we provide tooling for various build systems.
>
> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>> provisioning server.
>>
>
> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about this,
> so I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week or two.
> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:30 , Toni Menzel wrote:
> actually i am on it as well if possible.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:45 , Filippo Diotalevi wrote:
> Your proposal looks very promising, I wish it was accepted... today.
> Count me in if you need any help/beta testing.
Great to hear, guys, I'll announce here when I submitted the proposal.
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Toni Menzel <to...@okidokiteam.com>.
actually i am on it as well if possible.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Marcel Offermans <
marcel.offermans@luminis.nl> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:24 , Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Marcel Offermans
>> <ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>>>> provisioning server.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about this,
>>> so
>>> I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week or two.
>>> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
>>>
>>
>> Count me in. If possible ;)
>>
>
> Absolutely!
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
--
Toni Menzel
Software Developer
Professional Profile: http://www.osgify.com
toni@okidokiteam.com
http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
Participation Software.
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, I think I misread your proposition. I thought it was referring
> to the "distribution" for an OSGi framework (such as ServiceMix
> Kernel).
> Given the size of the donation, the incubator could be a good target.
+1
- robert
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, I think I misread your proposition. I thought it was referring
to the "distribution" for an OSGi framework (such as ServiceMix
Kernel).
Given the size of the donation, the incubator could be a good target.
2009/3/29 Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>:
> On Mar 29, 2009, at 23:09 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Marcel Offermans
>> <ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 29, 2009, at 20:59 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>
>>>> This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if there is
>>>> sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
>>>> easier process ...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> there's a lot of momentum and interest ATM so let's not waste it by delay
>
> Not trying to loose any momentum at all. In fact I had already prepared a proposal before ApacheCon and was just looking to add some users and initial committers to the list so we could start out with a real community (at least initially).
>
>>> My main motivation for trying to become a TLP is that this project is not
>>> specific to Felix, plus other projects that just "use OSGi" are separate
>>> projects too. Even though the provisioning server is built on OSGi, it can
>>> provision more than just OSGi. Is it really that much easier for a proposal
>>> to get accepted if it's a subproject, given that we seem to have many
>>> different people interested in joining already?
>>
>> a brand new TLP would require incubation and would take several weeks
>> to get going. i suspect that the scope of the incubation would be
>> difficult to get right. it might take quite a while before a suitable
>> proposal could be agreed.
>
> To be honest, there is a big, currently proprietary codebase that needs to be donated. That might take some time regardless of which way we go. However, I'm not sure if that would be such a good fit to do all of that within Felix. It's definitely more than "just a few components": we're talking about around 100 components here.
>
>> provided that the components are in scope with
>>
>> <blockquote cite='http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_03_28.txt'>
>> A. Establish the Apache Felix Project
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
>> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
>> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
>> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
>> open-source software implementing the OSGi Service Platform
>> and other software that is associated with or related to
>> the OSGi Service Platform for distribution at no charge to
>> the public.
>> </blockquote>
>>
>> then the Felix PMC can add new products with low initial overhead so
>> long as it feels it can offer the required oversight. i would suggest
>> that the PMC approaches the board for guidance if the commons looks
>> like it's going to be popular.
>
> That's another issue, the provisioning server does NOT try to limit itself to just OSGi, even though the OSGi framework because of its dynamic nature is very well suited as a target to deploy to.
>
> To sum it up:
> a) I don't mind doing the work now to go into incubation with the goal of becoming a TLP
> b) even though I have way less knowledge about Apache than some people here, I have the feeling that eventually this project will not have the same scope as the Felix project, so why not target a TLP directly
> c) probably the most significant aspect of the "startup process" is the actual donation of the current codebase, and adapting it, so even if we go as a subproject of Felix, it will take some time to get that going
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Mar 29, 2009, at 23:09 , Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Marcel Offermans
> <ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 2009, at 20:59 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if
>>> there is
>>> sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
>>> easier process ...
>
> +1
>
> there's a lot of momentum and interest ATM so let's not waste it by
> delay
Not trying to loose any momentum at all. In fact I had already
prepared a proposal before ApacheCon and was just looking to add some
users and initial committers to the list so we could start out with a
real community (at least initially).
>> My main motivation for trying to become a TLP is that this project
>> is not
>> specific to Felix, plus other projects that just "use OSGi" are
>> separate
>> projects too. Even though the provisioning server is built on OSGi,
>> it can
>> provision more than just OSGi. Is it really that much easier for a
>> proposal
>> to get accepted if it's a subproject, given that we seem to have many
>> different people interested in joining already?
>
> a brand new TLP would require incubation and would take several weeks
> to get going. i suspect that the scope of the incubation would be
> difficult to get right. it might take quite a while before a suitable
> proposal could be agreed.
To be honest, there is a big, currently proprietary codebase that
needs to be donated. That might take some time regardless of which way
we go. However, I'm not sure if that would be such a good fit to do
all of that within Felix. It's definitely more than "just a few
components": we're talking about around 100 components here.
> provided that the components are in scope with
>
> <blockquote cite='http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_03_28.txt'
> >
> A. Establish the Apache Felix Project
>
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
> Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
> Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
> open-source software implementing the OSGi Service Platform
> and other software that is associated with or related to
> the OSGi Service Platform for distribution at no charge to
> the public.
> </blockquote>
>
> then the Felix PMC can add new products with low initial overhead so
> long as it feels it can offer the required oversight. i would suggest
> that the PMC approaches the board for guidance if the commons looks
> like it's going to be popular.
That's another issue, the provisioning server does NOT try to limit
itself to just OSGi, even though the OSGi framework because of its
dynamic nature is very well suited as a target to deploy to.
To sum it up:
a) I don't mind doing the work now to go into incubation with the goal
of becoming a TLP
b) even though I have way less knowledge about Apache than some people
here, I have the feeling that eventually this project will not have
the same scope as the Felix project, so why not target a TLP directly
c) probably the most significant aspect of the "startup process" is
the actual donation of the current codebase, and adapting it, so even
if we go as a subproject of Felix, it will take some time to get that
going
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Marcel Offermans
<ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2009, at 20:59 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if there is
>> sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
>> easier process ...
+1
there's a lot of momentum and interest ATM so let's not waste it by delay
> My main motivation for trying to become a TLP is that this project is not
> specific to Felix, plus other projects that just "use OSGi" are separate
> projects too. Even though the provisioning server is built on OSGi, it can
> provision more than just OSGi. Is it really that much easier for a proposal
> to get accepted if it's a subproject, given that we seem to have many
> different people interested in joining already?
a brand new TLP would require incubation and would take several weeks
to get going. i suspect that the scope of the incubation would be
difficult to get right. it might take quite a while before a suitable
proposal could be agreed.
provided that the components are in scope with
<blockquote cite='http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/board_minutes_2007_03_28.txt'>
A. Establish the Apache Felix Project
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management
Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software implementing the OSGi Service Platform
and other software that is associated with or related to
the OSGi Service Platform for distribution at no charge to
the public.
</blockquote>
then the Felix PMC can add new products with low initial overhead so
long as it feels it can offer the required oversight. i would suggest
that the PMC approaches the board for guidance if the commons looks
like it's going to be popular.
- robert
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Mar 29, 2009, at 20:59 , Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if there is
> sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
> easier process ...
My main motivation for trying to become a TLP is that this project is
not specific to Felix, plus other projects that just "use OSGi" are
separate projects too. Even though the provisioning server is built on
OSGi, it can provision more than just OSGi. Is it really that much
easier for a proposal to get accepted if it's a subproject, given that
we seem to have many different people interested in joining already?
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if there is
> sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
> easier process ...
>
I guess you're refering to the distribution idea here, so a big +1 for
this approach. Starting at Felix should be easy and if we get enough
momentum, creating an own TLP should be easy as well. But starting with
a TLP right from the begin is not that easy :)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
This project could also start as a subproject of felix and if there is
sufficient momentum around it, become a TLP later. I think it is an
easier process ...
2009/3/27 Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>:
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:24 , Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Marcel Offermans
>> <ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>>>> provisioning server.
>>>
>>> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about this, so
>>> I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week or two.
>>> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
>>
>> Count me in. If possible ;)
>
> Absolutely!
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:24 , Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Marcel Offermans
> <ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>>> provisioning server.
>>
>> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about
>> this, so
>> I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week
>> or two.
>> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
>
> Count me in. If possible ;)
Absolutely!
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Alin Dreghiciu <ad...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Marcel Offermans
<ma...@luminis.nl> wrote:
>> as well as propose an Apache project for a
>> provisioning server.
>
> We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about this, so
> I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a week or two.
> Feel free to express your interest if you want to participate.
Count me in. If possible ;)
--
Alin Dreghiciu
http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open
Participation Software.
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development.
Looking for a job.
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Marcel Offermans <ma...@luminis.nl>.
Great summary, Clement! I'd like to elaborate on some of these points.
On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:16 , Clement Escoffier wrote:
> Several topics were addressed such as:
> - Why choosing Felix instead of Equinox: the license difference is not
> a killer argument. The main questions are: is Felix enough mature,
> what about the compliance, support, services .... ?
Our users are telling us they want a full R4.1 implementation (this is
one of the things I've been hearing for a long time now), so I think
we should make an effort to get to that point.
> - What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all
> bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party
> libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project.
> Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating
> a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a
> repository for existing bundles?
It probably makes sense to extend this beyond a plain OBR, since that
still won't allow "humans" to browse the repository and really learn
about the different components in there. We need something that really
helps the user, explaining the bundle, etc.
> Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the
> required "features/capabilities/profiles".
Just a distribution where Felix starts up with all the bundles
installed, running stuff like webconsole out of the box, that is a
good starting point for people to start developing their own stuff.
> - Marcel Offermans is going to present an Ant build system to build
> OSGi applications
Noel Bergman specifically was very interested in this, but I think it
would be good if we provide tooling for various build systems.
> as well as propose an Apache project for a
> provisioning server.
We had very positive feedback from the community at ApacheCon about
this, so I'm going to submit a proposal on this to the incubator in a
week or two. Feel free to express your interest if you want to
participate.
Greetings, Marcel
Re: ApacheCon EU Felix BOF
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
2009/3/27 Clement Escoffier <cl...@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Just a small mail to report a little bit what was discussed in the Apache Felix BOF:
>
> 30 people attend to the BOF. From the Felix team, Marcel O, Carsten Z, Felix M, Clement E were there.
>
> Several topics were addressed such as:
> - Why choosing Felix instead of Equinox: the license difference is not a killer argument. The main questions are: is Felix enough mature, what about the compliance, support, services .... ?
> - How to start with Felix: a technical perspective: Carsten's talk describe OSGi concepts but made a small overview of the tools. It seems that guideline has to be define to help people to start (design, tools, compilation....). For example, most people ignore that BND is also usable with Ant.
> - What about creating a "Apache bundle repository" containing all bundles made by Apache projects (both apache products and 3rd party libs). It will be something like an Apache OSGi Common project. Issues, License, Versioning, Support? Two issues are opened : creating a room for new bundles (script engines...) and how to create a repository for existing bundles?
I think we (ASF) definitely need something instead of letting all TLP
that goes OSGi to create bundles for their own needs. We have create
a fair amount of bundles in ServiceMix (see
http://servicemix.apache.org/smx4/bundles-repository.html).
We have also worked on JEE specifications to allow them to work
seamlessly in OSGi (using an extender that look up for providers in
META-INF/services/*). Such a subproject could be moved out of
ServiceMix too.
>
> Providing a all-in-one Felix distribution were the user selects the required "features/capabilities/profiles".
>
> Several possible donations were also discussed:
> - Guillaume Nodet has developed several services in the service mix project such as the jndi service, transaction service and also a extended "file install".
I'm working on removing the spring-dm dependencies of these services
and will submit patches for the jndi and transaction services soon.
For the file install / deployer, it may be a bit more difficult: the
code is derived from the same source but has since been enhanced a lot
and looks quite different now. Submitting a patch will be a difficult
task, but i encourage all users of this service to have a look at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/servicemix/smx4/kernel/trunk/filemonitor/
> - Marcel Offermans is going to present an Ant build system to build OSGi applications as well as propose an Apache project for a provisioning server.
>
> The next Felix release was also addressed. Apache Sling wait for it as they are relying on the 1.0.4 version right now. Karl is committed to achieve the release within two weeks :-)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Clement
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com