Agreed andy
At 01:47 18/04/2008, Bryan Atsatt wrote: >I propose that we re-organize and update the next draft of the spec >to achieve the following: > >1. Clearly identify and separate the two main elements of the spec: > > a. Framework (i.e. api/spi) > b. Default implementation (i.e. .jam distribution format, tools, > usage examples, etc.) > >2. Ensure that the framework is the primary focus of the spec, >identifying it as the means by which any implementation integrates >with the SE compiler and runtime. > >3. Clarify that any implementation will benefit from the integration >story provided by the framework (I describe four concrete benefits >in http://atsatt.blogspot.com/2008/04/jsr-277-could-be-great-for-osgi.html). > >4. Clarify the rationale for the existence of a new implementation. > >5. Recognize the importance of building a second implementation to >validate the framework design. > >6. Recognize OSGi as the right choice for that second implementation: > > a. A formal JCP adopted module standard. > b. Wide market adoption. > > >If the reasoning behind these proposals is not sufficiently clear to >everyone, I'll be happy to elaborate. > >// Bryan Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
