> On 18 Jan 2017, at 12:36, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> wrote: > > Fwiw, I think Christian was referring to the JAX-RS WHITEBOARD, not the > JAX-RS spec itself. > That one is an RFC from the OSGi Alliance... RFC-127 afaik.
This is pretty much my point. Why raise an issue with the “Whiteboard” half of “JAX-RS Whiteboard” but not with the “JAX-RS” half? Why don’t your arguments also apply to JCR specs, or IEEE or W3C specs? Regards, Neil > > 2017-01-18 13:34 GMT+01:00 Neil Bartlett <njbartl...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------ > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Red Hat, Open Source Integration > > Email: gno...@redhat.com > Web: http://fusesource.com > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
