Guillaume Nodet wrote > > Again, I'm talking about using Apache to develop the will-be reference > implementation of the being-designed spec. When the rfc is undergoing > changes, the RI, as you say, is an experimental project to make sure the > RFC properly address all problems and can be turned into a spec. The > information needed to get involved in such a moving target is not available > to the Apache community. Again, I've no problem if someone wants to > develop an implementation of a publicly available spec, but that's not what > I'm discussing here. > > And I don't think the OSGi Alliance want to have an open participation into > the spec design process, and that's perfectly fine with me. If I'm wrong, > then using public mailing lists and avoiding phone calls and f2f meetings > is the way to go, such as we do at the ASF. > We should not get into a discussion here how the OSGi Alliance should work.
The other option we have is that we don't do any implementation of an RFC here at Apache and wait for the final spec. Whoever is doing the RI does it somewhere else and might do a code contribution or not. Not sure if that is the preferable way. We might end up with not having an implementation at Apache at all. Regards Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
