Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

Hi Guillaume, So as to openly declare by bias I will state my interest in this conversation. My company commissioned Paremus to provide a DS solution for transaction control of JPA and JDBC resources which ultimately led to Aries tx-control. Your proposal sounds great, it really does, however I

Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

On 20 Jun 2017, at 15:28, Guillaume Nodet > wrote: 2017-06-20 12:53 GMT+02:00 Timothy Ward >: Hi Guillaume, The OSGi Alliance is an open organisation, and a number of OPS4j developers are

Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

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

Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

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

Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

Hi Christian The Transaction Control API has no OSGi framework dependency, so a Java SE mode of operation would be possible (just like Aries blueprint no osgi). Possibly something worth exploring? Tim Sent from my iPhone > On 20 Jun 2017, at 11:35, Christian Schneider

Re: [PROPOSAL] New pax project 'transx'

2017-06-16 11:16 GMT+02:00 Richard Nicholson : > > 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