Thanks for your feedback, Jeremy! I'd argue that IP clearance is absolutely necessary in this case since it's a clean-room development entirely by me, it's a relatively small codebase and I'm an Apache member with an ICLA on file. But I have no problem going through with it if this is preferred. After all, I've guided a larger contribution through back in 2006 already.
Jeremias Maerki On 22.10.2012 17:26:12 Jeremy Hughes wrote: > 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 > >>> > >> > > >>> > > > >>
