Christian, your example of JAX-RS Whiteboard is fascinating, because JAX-RS was designed by the Expert Groups of the JCP, not by the Apache community. The same is true of many of the JavaEE specifications implemented within Apache.
So, Apache has always worked pragmatically to implement specifications emerging from external standards bodies. It seems odd therefore to single out OSGi. Neil > On 18 Jan 2017, at 11:25, Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net> wrote: > > I agree with Guillaume that the way the specs are defined is not fully > compatible to the way apache projects are managed. > In apache the idea is that the design of a component is defined by the > community. > > Like in jax-rs-whiteboard .. if it was a pure apache thing then changes in > the interfaces would be proposed on the dev list and agreed on there. > As the interfaces are part of the spec this is out of direct reach for the > aries community. > > On the other hand I understand that the final decision about the spec has to > be at the OSGi alliance and even that only members may decide. > So I think this gap can not be fully solved but maybe we can improve it. > > So what I could imagine is this: > > - Changes on the spec should be immediately visible to the apache community. > This could be done using a github repo where the source of the spec resides > and an automated snapshot build. So all changes could be followed directly > and the newest spec jars would always be available. > - Protocols of the expert group meetings could be posted to the dev list > > Both improvements would shorten the feedback loop and give the apache > community at least more visibility of the spec progress. The community could > then also directly give feedback to the protocols as well as api changes on > the dev list. So this would of course still not allow the apache community to > drive the spec but I think it would be a good compromise. > > Christian > > On 18.01.2017 11:59, David Bosschaert wrote: >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> First of all, the OSGi Alliance is a very open standards development >> organization. Any organisation can join. RFPs and RFCs are developed in the >> open, specs are available for free and are free to be implemented by anyone. >> >> There is also an open feedback channel available where everyone can post >> feedback, described at https://github.com/osgi/design >> >> OSGi works very hard in defining specs that are portable and can be >> implemented without the need to pay for any licenses or anything of that >> sort. >> >> History has shown that spec implementations are really quite portable. >> Implementation bundles can be mixed from different sources and everything >> just works as long as you use the specced APIs. >> >> Every new spec that is being worked on in OSGi needs, besides the RFP/RFC >> and spec chapter, a Reference Implementation and a Conformance Testsuite. >> Over the past 10 years or so, Reference Implementations have primarily been >> implemented in open source. This has the benefit that everyone can see what >> the implementation is going to be and also it allows everyone to provide >> feedback and participate in the implementation. Apache committers have free >> access to the relevant CTs as well. >> >> I think this is all goodness. Or would you rather see that Reference >> Implementations are implemented in private? >> >> Best regards, >> >> David >> >> >> On 18 January 2017 at 10:41, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> I'm a bit concerned by some subprojects in our communities. >>> >>> The ASF is supposed to be "community over code", so the very basic thing >>> for a project is that people can get involved. >>> >>> However, I see more and more code developped as a reference implementation >>> of a spec which is not publicly available, because it's still being >>> developed at the OSGi Alliance. I find that very disturbing because >>> there's no way the community can get involved unless they are OSGi Alliance >>> members, and that's clearly not acceptable imho. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> Guillaume Nodet >>> > > > -- > Christian Schneider > http://www.liquid-reality.de > > Open Source Architect > http://www.talend.com >
