I understand the purpose, however where I'm really concern is the fact
that the OSGi Alliance is doing spec without considering existing
implementations.
I would love to have been involved in the features spec definition, but
it's not possible as an individual, or as ASF member.
Karaf features exist for 10+ years now, and I remember discussion with
some OSGi people while ago saying "it's useless, it doesn't make sense
with OSGi, Karaf is so so, blabla". And now we have a spec providing
quite the same.
I'm sorry to be upset, but this time, it doesn't sound fair to me.
For Karaf, as we started effort heading to Karaf 5, it could be a good
timing to leverage OSGi Features (we can have Karaf 5 service for Karaf
features, and another one for OSGi Features, letting users to choose
which one they want to use).
So +0 about having to it in Felix (I can't give +1 regarding what I just
wrote ;)).
Regards
JB
On 11/08/2021 10:56, Karl Pauls wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
I'm skeptical about that:
1. It looks pretty similar to Karaf Features, so, why not having it in
Karaf ?
2. The naming could be confusing between Karaf Features and OSGi Features
I think it makes more sense to have this in Karaf as it already almost
exists in Karaf for a while.
It does exist in sling for quite a while as well...
I guess in a nutshell, we have two things called features: karaf
features and sling features. Now, there is an effort to have a spec in
the area (namely, OSGi features).
As far as I'm concerned, putting the spec work into either sling or
karaf seems a little confusing - if we do it at Felix, we have a more
neutral ground and in the end, hopefully, both, karaf and sling can
support OSGi features as part of their features.
regards,
Karl
Regards
JB
On 11/08/2021 10:42, [email protected] wrote:
Hi all,
As many of you know, work is happening on the next OSGi Compendium R8
specifications [1].
One of the new specifications is the OSGi Feature Service (chapter 159)
[2]. I have been working on a compatible implementation in the Sling
Whiteboard [3]. My interest in this came from the Sling Feature model and
initially I thought a logical place for the implementation would be in
Sling.
However after some discussion at the Sling Dev list, the conclusion was
that this OSGi spec compatible implementation would be better hosted at a
more general OSGi community, like Apache Felix [4].
Therefore I would propose to host this implementation as an Apache Felix
subproject. For example in the 'features' subdirectory of the Felix
codebase.
WDYT?
Kind regards,
David
[1] Current draft at: https://osgi.github.io/osgi/cmpn/
[2] https://osgi.github.io/osgi/cmpn/service.feature.html
[3] https://github.com/apache/sling-whiteboard/tree/master/osgi-featuremodel
[4]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3b548064b13718350ef08d918018f0c9b175554b6c93b95c846c044d%40%3Cdev.sling.apache.org%3E
