> "We who are not Eclipse fanatics should work more together and not dilute our > resources."
+1 > The Pax community is strongly committed to OSGi framework independency, > interoperability and open participation. +1 My only bug with what you're saying is that it makes pax sound like another implementor of OSGi. I tend to think that this is not the right approach, and I have always thought of pax as something different. Rather, I see pax as being a little higher on the value chain. _Based on_ OSGi, pax provides various utilities for productivity. pax web et al were written to scratch an itch, granted. I say we give that over to Felix and let them handle it. It's their job. Case in point is pax-wicket. For me, this is probably _the_ most interesting project at ops4j. We're taking two different areas of expertise (osgi, wicket) and making them interoperable (not as easy as it sounds!). It allows peeps to actually write web applications based on OSGi. How cool is that! If we were to put more energy into this project, it could really kick ass. However, everybody seems to have jumped ship already. I wrote a mail with my concerns about 10 days ago about what I expect could be a major problem that may need some analysis, but there was no follow up. Don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining. I just think it shows that right now there isn't much interest in pax-wicket, which is to prove my point that pax seems to be turning into a patch engine for the big 3: Eclipse, Felix, KF. Is that really what we want in the long term? Anyway, just my 2 yen. Cheers, Dave _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
