You have a point about specs that don't get released. And in such a circumstance having something released with org.osgi packages marked provisional would be sort of a disaster.
But if a felix subproject is going to be an osgi ri, it really needs to be developed with the right package names. Otherwise, for instance, debugging the conformance test suite will be more or less impossible, as well as making running the ri against the ct implausible. So I think I'd like the policy to say (sub) projects are strongly discouraged from releasing anything with a non released osgi spec api no matter what package it's moved to and how provisional it's marked, but it's ok to have unreleased org.osgi packages in source as long as either the spec gets released before any felix release is made or they are removed before any felix release is made. My next DS commits add the DTO stuff, so unless the policy is changed they will have to wait on github for a while. thanks david jencks On May 16, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > There was thought that went into that policy, it wasn't just pulled out of > the air...further, from experience of working on that specs that didn't make > the cut (original OBR and Gogo), I can say the policy does a good job of > avoiding the confusion/complication created in those cases. > > So, working around the policy based on personal whim, doesn't seem like a > good idea...that sort of makes it not a policy. > > However, all policies can be improved. You could argue that the policy should > simply be modified, as David suggests, to say only "released" subprojects > must not contain provisional API. > > I'd personally be fine with that, but such a subproject would still have to > be fine with not having an official release until the specs are final. > > -> richard > > On 5/16/14, 13:59 , David Jencks wrote: >> Well, I pretty much disagree with the existing policy being good or nice, >> but I think I agree with your proposal. >> >> I think that there should be very different policy for the svn tree and for >> releases. I don't think it's a very good idea to have a release with a >> provisional osgi api, whether or not it's had its packages shaded. However >> if we decide we need to do this I think _either_ renaming the packages _or_ >> marking the packages provisional should be sufficient, not both. >> >> For the svn tree, I think it's fine to just copy the osgi draft source into >> some appropriate location and build it as part of the project. The svn tree >> is not for general consumption, if you use it you are supposed to know what >> you are doing and you certainly aren't supposed to rely on it for production >> without doing your own deternimation that it is entirely suitable, since it >> comes with no assurances of anything from apache. We just shouldn't release >> anything in this state: either the spec gets released first, or we mark the >> spec packages provisional or rename them. >> >> I have the same problem with the felix ds/rfc 190 work, with the new >> runtime and dto packages, and realistically for me the options are either >> changing the policy, or keeping my work visible on github until the spec is >> released. >> >> I don't have time or interest to investigate, but it might be possible to >> use the maven shade plugin to rename the packages in byte code. I imagine >> we'd have to run bnd after this step. I don't know if the shading can be >> done to integration tests as well so the instructions to bnd don't have to >> be duplicated with and without the mangled package names so we can create an >> unshaded bundle for unshaded integration tests. >> >> thanks for reminding me to think about this before I committed :-) >> >> david jencks >> >> On May 15, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> right now we have a policy for handling provisional OSGi API (API that is >>> currently drafted in the OSGi expert groups but not final or officially >>> released yet): >>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/development/provisional-osgi-api-policy.html >>> >>> While the policy is good and nice, it requires to rename the packages from >>> an OSGi namespace to an Apache one for the reasons stated in the policy. >>> However, this creates a burden for people using this stuff, e.g. when >>> writing tests as these need to be refactored later on anyway. >>> >>> The reference implementation of the new Http Service (RFC 189) will be done >>> as part of Apache Felix and we would like to start working on this in the >>> open. Therefore we need to commit the current version of the API draft >>> somewhere. I think if we do this in the whiteboard section, it should be >>> clear enough that the API is provisional and we don't need to rename the >>> packages. We can also add all kinds of disclaimers/readmes etc. >>> But before doing so, I would like to get the general feeling about this. >>> >>> So, wdyt? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Carsten >>> -- >>> Carsten Ziegeler >>> [email protected] >
