Sounds good to me. Just one note, I think it should not necessarily be a sub-component of SPI Fly. Yes, it uses that for some of its functionality, but I think that's really an implementation detail. I think it should be a top-level component in its own right. Just to compare, there are other components that depend on the Aries proxy functionality, but still they are not sub-components of aries-proxy.
Cheers, David On 8 October 2012 09:47, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
