On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Niclas Hedhmannic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Millerkevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
... What would be the
benefit for the Aries community of developing these spec implementations at
Felix?
Ideally, you have more people taking care
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Leo Simonsm...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Todd Volkerttvolk...@gmail.com wrote:
The LICENSE file does not contain the full CCA LICENSE for the Silk
icons; see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode for
the full
Makes sense. I'll call off the vote and re-tag. I'll send another heads up
when the podling voting starts on the RC3 candidate.
Thanks everyone, especially Sebb, for your attention,
-T
This vote is being cancelled due to an issue found with the CCL license in
the LICENSE file.
Hi,
The Apache Felix project has received a contribution of an Improved OSGi
HttpService implementation
* The code is attached to the FELIX-1456 JIRA issue [1]
* The IP Clearance form has been committed to the Incubator website. [2]
* A vote has passed on the d...@felix mailing list [3]
The
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 07:50, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Millerkevan.mil...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, let's assume that one or more OSGi spec implementations are a core
part
of Aries -- with specific features/customization for Aries.
Being a fan and a regular contributor of Felix I still don't see why
Felix should have the monopoly on OSGi spec implementations.
If there is a group of people who would like to build a community
*specifically* around enterprise OSGi components, then why not let
them do that? If some of these
There are a few things I don't understand well. I thought the ASF over the
past years was trying to discourage umbrella projects. I also thought that
overlap between the projects was indeed accepted (we already have multiple
JAX-WS or JAX-RS implementations in various TLPs / podlings).
That
2009/9/4 Guillaume Nodet gno...@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 07:50, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kevan Millerkevan.mil...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, let's assume that one or more OSGi spec implementations are a core
part
of Aries -- with
Let me point out one more time: Nobody is talking about Aries as a
Felix incubator project. We are only talking about the OSGi EE spec
implementations that are part of the proposed Aries scope.
I'd be more then happy to see the rest of the proposal (namely, to
explore how to build an enterprise
Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the
suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix. I don't
see this approach being taken for other specification organizations
(JCP, OASIS, etc.) and I think that is to the benefit of Apache. For
example, whilst a goal of
For things that come from ServiceMix, I think the story is really
different. ServiceMix TLP charter is the following: an extensible
messaging bus for service integration, mediation and composition and its
related components. So clearly, Karaf, as an enhanced OSGi runtime
distribution, does
On Fri September 4 2009 9:27:23 am Graham Charters wrote:
Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the
suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix. I don't
see this approach being taken for other specification organizations
(JCP, OASIS, etc.) and I think
Greetings,
The shindig community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
1.1-BETA2. The next step is approval by the Incubator PMC to publish this
release. The summary is attached below. Note that we did have to respin
the release twice due to issues with checksums. Artifacts are here:
We need the software grant on file for this, did I miss it?
- richard
On 9/4/09 7:25, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
The Apache Felix project has received a contribution of an Improved OSGi
HttpService implementation
* The code is attached to the FELIX-1456 JIRA issue [1]
* The IP Clearance
+1 from me as well. Just to reiterate one more point, As with any
other podling, the destination of this podling is determined *when* we
graduate. If there is enough help/guidance/participation from folks
on d...@felix to the podling, then the podling will naturally gravitate
towards becoming a
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Kulpdk...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri September 4 2009 9:27:23 am Graham Charters wrote:
Having read all the discussions, I still have concerns about the
suggestion to put all OSGi spec implementation under Felix. I don't
see this approach being taken for
On 9/4/09 9:05, Daniel Kulp wrote:
As a point of note, not all OSGi spec implementations live in Felix even at
Apache today. The Remote Services/Distributed OSGi reference implementation
is a sub project of CXF. I think Tuscany has an implementation as well.
So far, there hasn't been any
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
So, no, I am not saying everything should, but in general, it would be
nice if the spec impls started there since we have a community of OSGi
users and OSGi experts who are very active and receptive, many of whom
also work in the EE space.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote:
The Cassandra community voted on and approved the release of Apache
Cassandra 0.4.0-rc1. We would now like to request the approval of the
Incubator PMC for this release.
+1 from me.
Matthieu
Cassandra is a massively
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
So, no, I am not saying everything should, but in general, it would be
nice if the spec impls started there since we have a community of OSGi
users and OSGi experts who are very active and
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
On 09/04/2009 03:49 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
So, no, I am not saying everything should, but in general, it would be
nice if the spec impls started there since we
Richard,
I see your viewpoint better now. Thanks.
One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not being able or willing to participate in a new
podling? (If the folks presenting this proposal do wish to start off as a podling)
thanks,
dims
On 09/04/2009 04:31 PM,
Let me clarify why i asked that question, When we started the Wink Podling there was strong recommendation that the
incoming folks should work under CXF which already has a JAX-RS implementation. Once we did start the podling we have
had guidance from just Dan Kulp from CXF and not from anyone
On 9/4/09 16:49, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Richard,
I see your viewpoint better now. Thanks.
One more question, Will there be a problem of folks on d...@felix not
being able or willing to participate in a new podling? (If the folks
presenting this proposal do wish to start off as a podling)
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
On 9/4/09 16:10, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Choices are
1) Podling - TLP
2) Podling - Felix Sub project
3) Podling - Felix Sub project - TLP
4) Felix Sub project
5) Felix Sub project - TLP
So, why should we bypass
26 matches
Mail list logo
