On 21/09/2007, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marcel Offermans wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2007, at 21:37 , Richard S. Hall wrote: > > > > > >> For me, I am not so sure about this one. I am not sure if makes > >> sense, for example, for us to donate the bundle plugin to Maven, > >> since the area of expertise around OSGi is in Felix, so if people > >> have questions about stuff they will likely want answers from us, not > >> from Maven guys. However, if Maven started to become much more > >> OSGi-centered, then my position on this could change. > > > >> From my point of view, it makes sense that we (i.e., Felix community) > >> develop tools that make it easier for people to use Felix (e.g., > >> bundleplugin). The fact that bundleplugin uses Maven is just an > >> implementation issue. For example, mangen does a similar job as > >> bundleplugin, but it is not based on maven, so what would we do with > >> that? Of course, we wouldn't do anything with it. The point is that > >> we are making tools to help people use Felix and these tools should > >> be part of the Felix project, no matter what technology they are > >> implemented on top of. > > > > That's another way to look at things. Another approach could be to not > > only donate the code to other projects, but (as a figure of speech) > > donate the developer(s) too and have them maintain the code in another > > project. > > To me, this would just dilute the expertise in the Felix community and > would require that users know where to ask their OSGi questions, rather > than just coming to Felix for all of their OSGi questions.
another benefit of keeping such tools/plugins at Felix is that people may drop by looking for a plugin and find out about the framework - if all the tools were on other sites they could end up sticking with Equinox ;) > Then again, it also depends on the scope of the Felix project. Do we > > only implement the core framework? Or core plus compendium? Or that > > plus other useful bundles? Or even including development utilities and > > plugins? A lot of what we do is not bound to the framework anyway, but > > can be used in any OSGi framework. > > Well, I am pretty sure the proposal said that we will try to do the > entire spec (core + compendium), plus try to advance OSGi technology > with our own ideas and projects too. So, the scope is actually quite > large. :-) > > -> richard > > > > > > Greetings, Marcel > > > -- Cheers, Stuart
