Hi Achim, I am certain that that this is a conversation that has been had before, and that it would be better for any revisit of this discussion to be held between OPS4j and the Alliance rather than on the Karaf/Aries dev lists. I am also not an OSGi board representative, nor am I corporate officer of the OSGi Alliance, so I can’t speak on their behalf. Finally, I wasn’t part of any previous discussion between OPS4j and the OSGi Alliance about accepting implementations from OPS4j, so I do not know what any specific sticking points might have been.
I do know that in order for an “external” community to contribute reference implementations to the OSGi Alliance (which seems to be what we’re talking about here) there are rules about acceptable Open Source licences, levels of community diversity, legal IP governance and guarantees of originality for the code. There are probably other important requirements that I am not aware of. I know that Apache and Eclipse are examples of acceptable external communities which are regularly used to provide reference implementations, and that OPS4j is currently not on that list. There may be very little for OPS4j to do to become another such community, or there may be some thornier problems that would need to be solved before that could be the case. If you want anything more specific I strongly recommend contacting the OSGi Alliance, either through a board member or the CTO. See https://www.osgi.org/about-us/board-officers/ for contact details. Best Regards, Tim On 20 Jun 2017, at 12:12, Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com<mailto:bcanh...@googlemail.com>> wrote: Hi Tim, could you please elaborate on this a bit more? On the other hand to maintain the openness of its standards the OSGi Alliance must have a strict IP policy, one that prevents it from consuming arbitrary code or IP from external sources. If OPS4j are able to get to a compatible place contribution-wise then I'm sure you'd see a flow of work in the other direction too. especially the "If OPS4j are able to get to a compatible place contribution-wise" what in your view is missing for the OPS4j community to be regarded a compatible place? regards, Achim 2017-06-20 12:53 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward <timothyjw...@apache.org<mailto:timothyjw...@apache.org>>: Hi Guillaume, The OSGi Alliance is an open organisation, and a number of OPS4j developers are already members via their companies. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from getting involved with the Alliance, nor preventing any non-members from joining. On the other hand to maintain the openness of its standards the OSGi Alliance must have a strict IP policy, one that prevents it from consuming arbitrary code or IP from external sources. If OPS4j are able to get to a compatible place contribution-wise then I'm sure you'd see a flow of work in the other direction too. As for Aries Tx Control - a Narayana based XA implementation would be a great addition, as would JMS support. Wrapping the Geronimo transaction manager is deliberate for three reasons: * the javax.transaction package is toxic due to its split package in the JRE. Hiding all of the JTA code allows the impl to work without system packages being declared when launching the OSGi framework. * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can offer last participant support * by being Geronimo specific the implementation can support XA recovery This model gives a great level of functionality in an easy to access way for users, and I would be keen to keep this option. A pluggable model is possible, but would need to be done carefully to ensure that scopes could cope with external parties "messing with" the transaction. It would also lose the benefits described above, although neither of these things mean that it would not be worth adding as an alternative implementation. Finally - I am not sure why tx Control would have a dependency on pax jdbc (other than as a source of DataSourceFactory services)? This sounds like it would make the Aries project harder to configure and deploy, and I can't immediately see what additional benefits it would provide. Can you clarify? Regards, Tim Sent from my iPhone On 20 Jun 2017, at 11:00, Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org<mailto:gno...@apache.org>> wrote: 2017-06-16 11:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Nicholson <puppy_wants_a_...@me.com<mailto:puppy_wants_a_...@me.com>>: Doesn’t this directly clash with OSGi Alliance Transaction Control Specification work going on in Aries? If so, wouldn’t it make more sense for this community to input into that work rather than cause needless confusion / fragmentation? Just a thought. Yeah, I'm a bit skeptic about the relationship between the OPS4j community and the OSGi Alliance work. It seems to always go in the same direction... i.e. the guys working at OPS4j should help working on the project defined by the guys working at the OSGi Alliance. That being said, the work in Aries is about defining a new programming model for transactions. That's something I'm not really interested in at this point. In addition, my initial goal is to have support for JMS + Narayana and both aspects are not covered. In particular, it does create and wrap the geronimo TransactionManager instead of re-using an external one (even the one defined in Aries Transaction for example). In theory, things should be layered. For example, pax-jdbc provides a way to expose DataSourceFactory objects in the OSGi registry. Imho, pooling should be done at this level, as specified in the DataSourceFactory interface. So pooling inside aries-tx-control is irrelevant. This project is even at a lower level and I plan to integrate it below pax-jdbc for the jdbc part. That said, I may have a look at aries-tx-control and see if I can replace some of the code there to leverage pax-jdbc and pax-transx more to help avoiding confusion and fragmentation. On 15 Jun 2017, at 13:55, Toni Menzel <toni.men...@rebaze.com<mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com>> wrote: Sounds interesting! Two comments: - i find the whole space of "pooling resources" a not confusing and hard to find out what you actually really need. So, say once you know you want takaricp, which other bridges and matching configs do you need so that the DataSource proxy (for JDBC) appears in your Service Registry. Maybe it's just me not following bridge provider-projects like Aries too closely. Anything that makes setup simpler and offers a wider range of options is highly welcome. (particularly in the OPS4J community, or how Bndtools people say "P A X" ;) - Any reason why this is not Pax Tx (org.ops4j.pax.tx) ?Find the Transx a bit alien. just an idea. Thanks for your heads up, JB about karaf-boot. Was wondering what happened to it. Toni On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Achim Nierbeck < bcanh...@googlemail.com<mailto:bcanh...@googlemail.com> wrote: Hi Guillaume, sounds like a good idea to me, and the pax space like the perfect eco system :) regards, Achim 2017-06-15 10:20 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net>: +1 It sounds like a good idea and definitely a good candidate for PAX. By the way, on my side, I did good progress on: - karaf sample & new dev guide - some new updates on karaf-boot - ServiceMix APIMan for API/Service Discovery, Management, Gateway But I will send an update in separate threads. Regards JB On 06/15/2017 09:57 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: I began to work on a small project which aims at providing support for pooled XA-enabled connections for JDBC and JMS. For JDBC, the problem was already solved in pax-jdbc by using either pax-jdbc-pool-aries when deploying the Aries/Geronimo transaction manager, and by using pax-jdbc-pool-narayana when using the Narayana transaction manager. However, there's absolutely no support for JMS. So what I've been doing is to reuse the geronimo JCA connector, make it independent on Geronimo TM and add support for Narayana, use a clone of the old tranql adapter for JDBC and rewrite a new JMS 2.0 compatible adapter for JMS. It's not in a usable state yet, but I wanted to give an heads-up. My plan is to make the pooling almost transparent in OSGi, and reuse it instead of the connection pooling I added to Karaf a few weeks ago which does not support XA or recovery: https://github.com/apache/karaf/tree/master/jms/pool and maybe to plug it into pax-jdbc to replace pax-jdbc-pool-aries and pax-jdbc-pool-narayana. The source code is currently available at: https://github.com/gnodet/org.ops4j.pax.transx Cheers, -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré jbono...@apache.org http://blog.nanthrax.net Talend - http://www.talend.com -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Co-Author of Apache Karaf Cookbook <http://bit.ly/1ps9rkS> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
