On 22 October 2012 11:01, David Bosschaert <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure what the rules are here but if you can't propose it as a > non-committer I would be happy to propose it for you. > > Anyone else any thoughts?
Sure. The voting process dictates whose votes are binding and I would expect one of those people to commit the code if the vote is successful. Jeremias, I support you bringing this to Aries. Thank you (in fact I already mentioned it our last board report that you had contributed it :-) Since you developed your code outside the ASF you should look at: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html Thanks you! > > Cheers, > > David > > On 22 October 2012 08:04, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> wrote: >> Dear gods of war, ;-) >> >> would it be ill taken if I started an acceptance vote on this as a >> non-committer? I'd like to get a decision since I need to know soon if >> this will live on under org.apache package names or not. It doesn't >> really matter to me which way in the end. >> >> Thanks! >> Jeremias Maerki >> >> >> On 09.10.2012 17:00:21 Jeremias Maerki wrote: >>> Thanks for the additional proposal! Spire is quite nice, but in the end >>> I went with SPI Catch for now as it emphasizes the relationship with SPI >>> Fly. I have no problem renaming it, though. >>> >>> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-938 and attached >>> the initial submission. >>> >>> You're absolutely right about the possible confusion with distributed >>> discovery. I have a little such component of my own that has "discovery" >>> in its name. Sticking with a reference to "SPI" is certainly a good >>> thing. >>> >>> There is a little snag that currently, the OSGI-side integration test >>> doesn't work for some reason when running from within the Maven build. >>> It works for me inside Eclipse. I've spent more than half my day >>> tracking this down but so far to no avail (suggestions welcome). But I >>> don't think this should block an acceptance vote. >>> >>> So, any questions, objections or other comments on this proposal? >>> >>> If not I'd be grateful if the Aries committership would vote on the >>> acceptance of the new component. Please note that this is not intended >>> as a code drop. I plan to make further live tests and to publish the >>> necessary changes to Apache FOP and Batik to apply SPI Catch and make >>> those projects first-class OSGi citizens. The bundles are going into a >>> a test environment of an application that is planned to go live in >>> January 2013. However, I don't expect SPI Catch to gain considerably >>> more functionality in the future since its scope is rather narrowly >>> defined. But I'm dedicated to hanging around here to help anyone who >>> finds this useful. If it can help flesh out OSGi Connect, all the better. >>> I'll also try to help out with SPI Fly and other topics. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeremias Maerki >>> >>> >>> On 08.10.2012 11:44:00 David Bosschaert wrote: >>> > Hi Jeremias, >>> > >>> > I wouldn't take the discovery one as discovery in the OSGi context is >>> > often associated with distributed discovery in the context of the >>> > Remote Services and Remote Service Admin specs. >>> > >>> > I just came up with one other name suggestion: Spire (where SPI stands >>> > for SPI and 'RE' stands for reuse both inside and outside of OSGi >>> > contexts :-) >>> > >>> > In any case the name is probably not super important right now. Just >>> > pick one that you like for the submission proposal. Refactoring tools >>> > in IDEs like Eclipse should make it easy enough to rename later if >>> > someone comes up with a better name. >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > David >>> > >>> > On 8 October 2012 10:34, Jeremias Maerki <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > Agreed. So, let's narrow down the name suggestions to two: >>> > > >>> > > - org.apache.aries.discovery >>> > > - org.apache.aries.spicatch (SPI Catch, i.e. the opposite of SPI Fly) >>> > > >>> > > I prefer the latter since it has a cheeky touch and still retains the >>> > > relationship with SPI Fly. >>> > > >>> > > WDYT? Better ideas? >>> > > >>> > > Cheers, >>> > > Jeremias Maerki >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 08.10.2012 11:03:30 David Bosschaert wrote: >>> > >> 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 >>> > >> > >>> > > >>
