On 6/8/10 14:53, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 8, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote:
On 6/7/10 18:12, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:22 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Hi Richard,
This isn't too important, but I have to admit that
charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software related to an OSGI based runtime for
creating enterprise servers
doesn't actually say anything meaningful to me because
it has too many happy market terms.
Would it be fair to summarize Karaf as
"an OSGI-based runtime container that allows various components
and applications to be dynamically deployed within a Java servlet
environment"
No. There is no necessary connection between karaf and servlets or web servers or web
applications, and even with a more general definition of "server" I think this
misses the point. I'm sorry you don't like our wording, but we tried a lot of
variations and this is really the best we could come up with, and to me it's quite
specific and accurate.
There is no way that "creating enterprise servers" is either specific
or accurate, unless you have some special definition of BOTH enterprise
and server that I am not aware of. It is incorrect use of terminology.
You can describe your technology any way you want, but I need to
know what the scope of the project will be in order to vote for the
resolution, and the above is what I could guess from reading the
website content. I don't know what Karaf is capable of doing.
I just want to know how to distinguish it from what Apache Felix
and Apache Sling are already responsible for overseeing, and I know
for a fact that Sling is already "creating enterprise servers"
by at least one definition of that phrase. Please be more specific.
How about something like:
A generic OSGi-based platform providing features and services for
creating OSGi-based server applications.
I already pointed out that karaf is not for creating applications, but for
creating servers.
I don't think our definitions of "application" are the same. I equate
the word application with program, meaning some executable software.
Thus, "server application" further refines the type of application, much
like "database application" or "end-user application" does.
It seems to me, you equate application with "end-user application". It
is not clear to me that this is the universal definition, but I don't
have any issue striking the last word (i.e., "applications") from the
above definition if it makes you feel better.
-> richard
david jencks
?
-> richard
....Roy
