aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Hughes <hugh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [SPI Fly] Interest for a more dynamic plug-in/service discovery API?
Date Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:26:12 GMT
On 22 October 2012 11:01, David Bosschaert <david.bosschaert@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the rules are here but if you can't propose it as a
> non-committer I would be happy to propose it for you.
>
> Anyone else any thoughts?

Sure. The voting process dictates whose votes are binding and I would
expect one of those people to commit the code if the vote is
successful.

Jeremias, I support you bringing this to Aries. Thank you (in fact I
already mentioned it our last  board report that you had contributed
it :-) Since you developed your code outside the ASF you should look
at: http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html

Thanks you!

>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
> On 22 October 2012 08:04, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote:
>> Dear gods of war, ;-)
>>
>> would it be ill taken if I started an acceptance vote on this as a
>> non-committer? I'd like to get a decision since I need to know soon if
>> this will live on under org.apache package names or not. It doesn't
>> really matter to me which way in the end.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jeremias Maerki
>>
>>
>> On 09.10.2012 17:00:21 Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>>> Thanks for the additional proposal! Spire is quite nice, but in the end
>>> I went with SPI Catch for now as it emphasizes the relationship with SPI
>>> Fly. I have no problem renaming it, though.
>>>
>>> I've opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIES-938 and attached
>>> the initial submission.
>>>
>>> You're absolutely right about the possible confusion with distributed
>>> discovery. I have a little such component of my own that has "discovery"
>>> in its name. Sticking with a reference to "SPI" is certainly a good
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> There is a little snag that currently, the OSGI-side integration test
>>> doesn't work for some reason when running from within the Maven build.
>>> It works for me inside Eclipse. I've spent more than half my day
>>> tracking this down but so far to no avail (suggestions welcome). But I
>>> don't think this should block an acceptance vote.
>>>
>>> So, any questions, objections or other comments on this proposal?
>>>
>>> If not I'd be grateful if the Aries committership would vote on the
>>> acceptance of the new component. Please note that this is not intended
>>> as a code drop. I plan to make further live tests and to publish the
>>> necessary changes to Apache FOP and Batik to apply SPI Catch and make
>>> those projects first-class OSGi citizens. The bundles are going into a
>>> a test environment of an application that is planned to go live in
>>> January 2013. However, I don't expect SPI Catch to gain considerably
>>> more functionality in the future since its scope is rather narrowly
>>> defined. But I'm dedicated to hanging around here to help anyone who
>>> finds this useful. If it can help flesh out OSGi Connect, all the better.
>>> I'll also try to help out with SPI Fly and other topics.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jeremias Maerki
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08.10.2012 11:44:00 David Bosschaert wrote:
>>> > Hi Jeremias,
>>> >
>>> > I wouldn't take the discovery one as discovery in the OSGi context is
>>> > often associated with distributed discovery in the context of the
>>> > Remote Services and Remote Service Admin specs.
>>> >
>>> > I just came up with one other name suggestion: Spire (where SPI stands
>>> > for SPI and 'RE' stands for reuse both inside and outside of OSGi
>>> > contexts :-)
>>> >
>>> > In any case the name is probably not super important right now. Just
>>> > pick one that you like for the submission proposal. Refactoring tools
>>> > in IDEs like Eclipse should make it easy enough to rename later if
>>> > someone comes up with a better name.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > David
>>> >
>>> > On 8 October 2012 10:34, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>
wrote:
>>> > > Agreed. So, let's narrow down the name suggestions to two:
>>> > >
>>> > > - org.apache.aries.discovery
>>> > > - org.apache.aries.spicatch (SPI Catch, i.e. the opposite of SPI Fly)
>>> > >
>>> > > I prefer the latter since it has a cheeky touch and still retains the
>>> > > relationship with SPI Fly.
>>> > >
>>> > > WDYT? Better ideas?
>>> > >
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > > Jeremias Maerki
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 08.10.2012 11:03:30 David Bosschaert wrote:
>>> > >> Sounds good to me.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Just one note, I think it should not necessarily be a sub-component
of
>>> > >> SPI Fly. Yes, it uses that for some of its functionality, but I
think
>>> > >> that's really an implementation detail. I think it should be a
>>> > >> top-level component in its own right.
>>> > >> Just to compare, there are other components that depend on the
Aries
>>> > >> proxy functionality, but still they are not sub-components of
>>> > >> aries-proxy.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Cheers,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> David
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On 8 October 2012 09:47, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>
wrote:
>>> > >> > Hi David
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Great! I think the process should be easy:
>>> > >> > - We decide on a (package) name.
>>> > >> > - I change the package structure after that decision.
>>> > >> > - I'll try to come up with a POM (I'm no big Mavener)
>>> > >> > - I put together a submission which I'll upload to JIRA.
>>> > >> > - It is debatable whether I need to file a code grant but
I have
>>> > >> > developed that all by myself and I'm an ASF member (with an
ICLA on file).
>>> > >> > It's also not that big a contribution. So I don't think this
is
>>> > >> > necessary.
>>> > >> > - The Aries committership votes on acceptance.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > So, back to naming. What shall it be?
>>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spifly.consumer
>>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spifly.discovery
>>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.discovery
>>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.plugin.discovery
>>> > >> > - org.apache.aries.spi.catch ;-)
>>> > >> > - other ideas?
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Cheers,
>>> > >> > Jeremias Maerki
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On 08.10.2012 10:02:32 David Bosschaert wrote:
>>> > >> >> Hi Jeremias,
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> On 5 October 2012 14:58, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>
wrote:
>>> > >> >> >> Next question is would it make sense to add this
functionality to Aries?
>>> > >> >> >> I think it does. To me many of the ideas in here
match with the OSGi
>>> > >> >> >> Connect RFP 145 (http://www.osgi.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=145)
and
>>> > >> >> >> I think that, besides its practical use today,
this code could be a
>>> > >> >> >> valuable input to the standardization process
of OSGi Connect. Overall
>>> > >> >> >> the charter of OSGi Connect is to create a dynamic
services
>>> > >> >> >> environment that works both inside OSGi and out.
To me the overall
>>> > >> >> >> goal of your code seems similar.
>>> > >> >> >> If we all agree that it would be suitable for
this component to reside
>>> > >> >> >> in Aries, I think we should strive to make it
ultimately compliant
>>> > >> >> >> with the OSGi Connect spec, when that's available.
>>> > >> >> >>
>>> > >> >> >> Does this make sense to you?
>>> > >> >> >
>>> > >> >> > As I understand it OSGi Connect's goal is to use
a subset of the OSGi
>>> > >> >> > framework (most importantly the service layer but
not the module layer).
>>> > >> >> > So you can use the OSGi ServiceTracker to lookup
services. In that case,
>>> > >> >> > my library isn't needed and probably not very useful,
since it actually
>>> > >> >> > strives not to use OSGi APIs at all. So, I'm not
quite getting your
>>> > >> >> > point here. I got about one too many hints that some
people may have
>>> > >> >> > reservations when introducing OSGi to a plain Java
project ("Do we all
>>> > >> >> > have to learn OSGi? Can I still use X in plain Java?
etc."). OSGi,
>>> > >> >> > unfortunately, is still not as widely adopted as
I would like. I've
>>> > >> >> > noticed how a low-level ServiceTracker can provoke
reactions like: "Does
>>> > >> >> > it have to be that complicated?" At least, until
they get the power of
>>> > >> >> > it. So, my main goal was to really just shield everyone
from OSGi as
>>> > >> >> > much as possible. Basically, I just wanted to provide
an easy migration
>>> > >> >> > path without the requirement to learn about OSGi
beyond including
>>> > >> >> > manifest metadata. If my thingy helps OSGi Connect,
that's great but I
>>> > >> >> > frankly don't see how. I'm probably still missing
something.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> I get your point. From a very high level both OSGi Connect
and your
>>> > >> >> project aim at getting to use OSGi easier, however OSGi
Connect
>>> > >> >> strives to do this by introducing the OSGi APIs early
(before the
>>> > >> >> modularity layer) whereas your approach strives to do
this by
>>> > >> >> introducing the OSGi APIs late (or not at all, even).
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Personally I think choice is good and it's up to the users
to really
>>> > >> >> decide what technology they want to use. I think your
technology would
>>> > >> >> be at the right place in Apache Aries, so if you're happy
to donate it
>>> > >> >> I would be happy to support that and I can find out the
process by
>>> > >> >> which this should be done.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> All the best,
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> David
>>> > >> >
>>> > >
>>

Mime
View raw message