Thanks! I'll add the initial implementation soon.
Kind regards, David On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 at 12:16, JB Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David > > I understand your points. And yes, I think you are right: it makes sense > to have a impl at Felix. Other projects like Sling or Karaf have three > options: don’t use the spec, have their own spec impl, leverage Felix impl. > > I’m changing my vote to +1 about having an impl in Felix. > > Anyway I would be more than happy to work with you folks on the specs. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 11 août 2021 à 11:34, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > > > Hi JB, > > > > The good news is that as of the beginning of this year, OSGi is now at > > Eclipse [5]. The specification project is hosted at > > https://github.com/osgi/osgi and the working group details are at [6]. > > Anyone can join in the spec project calls (see the calendar at [7]), join > > the mailing list [8] and provide PRs on the project - it just works as a > > regular Eclipse opensource project. JB (and others) you can just join > these > > :) > > > > It's very common and actually really good if multiple technologies > already > > exist that relate to a spec. This is one of the reasons where a > > specification makes a lot of sense. In the case of Features a number of > > technologies already existed in this area, including Sling Features, > Karaf > > Features, Eclipse Features and others. > > As Karl mentioned, hopefully these technologies will support OSGi > Features > > in the future. > > > > The implementation of the OSGi Features that I worked on is a very small > > 'compatible' implementation. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles > > that other implementations have. But it provides an implementation of the > > API defined in the spec. In order for the OSGi spec at Eclipse to be > > released there needs to be at least one Compatible Implementation. > > > > So in summary the benefits are: > > * OSGi at Eclipse is open for all now > > * The proposed implementation would allow the spec to be released - which > > helps if other projects would like to support it too > > * Having this implementation in Felix would avoid any confusion around > > naming, which was flagged by the Sling community - as there would only be > > one Features implementation at Felix. > > > > JB, all, I hope you see the benefits. > > > > Best regards, > > > > David > > > > [5] https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/osgi-specification-project > > [6] https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.osgi > > [7] > > > https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=c_fh3lhb5p0l29f6phu2ndifh4a4%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America%2FToronto > > [8] https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/osgi-dev > > > > > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 10:08, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
