Hi David Great! I think the process should be easy: - We decide on a (package) name. - I change the package structure after that decision. - I'll try to come up with a POM (I'm no big Mavener) - I put together a submission which I'll upload to JIRA. - It is debatable whether I need to file a code grant but I have developed that all by myself and I'm an ASF member (with an ICLA on file). It's also not that big a contribution. So I don't think this is necessary. - The Aries committership votes on acceptance.
So, back to naming. What shall it be? - org.apache.aries.spifly.consumer - org.apache.aries.spifly.discovery - org.apache.aries.discovery - org.apache.aries.plugin.discovery - org.apache.aries.spi.catch ;-) - other ideas? Cheers, Jeremias Maerki On 08.10.2012 10:02:32 David Bosschaert wrote: > Hi Jeremias, > > On 5 October 2012 14:58, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Next question is would it make sense to add this functionality to Aries? > >> I think it does. To me many of the ideas in here match with the OSGi > >> Connect RFP 145 (http://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145) and > >> I think that, besides its practical use today, this code could be a > >> valuable input to the standardization process of OSGi Connect. Overall > >> the charter of OSGi Connect is to create a dynamic services > >> environment that works both inside OSGi and out. To me the overall > >> goal of your code seems similar. > >> If we all agree that it would be suitable for this component to reside > >> in Aries, I think we should strive to make it ultimately compliant > >> with the OSGi Connect spec, when that's available. > >> > >> Does this make sense to you? > > > > As I understand it OSGi Connect's goal is to use a subset of the OSGi > > framework (most importantly the service layer but not the module layer). > > So you can use the OSGi ServiceTracker to lookup services. In that case, > > my library isn't needed and probably not very useful, since it actually > > strives not to use OSGi APIs at all. So, I'm not quite getting your > > point here. I got about one too many hints that some people may have > > reservations when introducing OSGi to a plain Java project ("Do we all > > have to learn OSGi? Can I still use X in plain Java? etc."). OSGi, > > unfortunately, is still not as widely adopted as I would like. I've > > noticed how a low-level ServiceTracker can provoke reactions like: "Does > > it have to be that complicated?" At least, until they get the power of > > it. So, my main goal was to really just shield everyone from OSGi as > > much as possible. Basically, I just wanted to provide an easy migration > > path without the requirement to learn about OSGi beyond including > > manifest metadata. If my thingy helps OSGi Connect, that's great but I > > frankly don't see how. I'm probably still missing something. > > I get your point. From a very high level both OSGi Connect and your > project aim at getting to use OSGi easier, however OSGi Connect > strives to do this by introducing the OSGi APIs early (before the > modularity layer) whereas your approach strives to do this by > introducing the OSGi APIs late (or not at all, even). > > Personally I think choice is good and it's up to the users to really > decide what technology they want to use. I think your technology would > be at the right place in Apache Aries, so if you're happy to donate it > I would be happy to support that and I can find out the process by > which this should be done. > > All the best, > > David
