Re: [ecf-dev] OSGi RFC 119 for ECF 3.0?

[Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff and Jan,

Jeff McAffer wrote:
> AFAIK the OSGi members have the first right of refusal to supply the 
> RI for any given part of the spec.  It is up to them to decide if they 
> will give it away, sell it, make it real, ...  If no members choose to 
> take this right, then the alliance looks to open source for a viable RI.  

Thanks Jeff...I understand this.  I suppose membership must have its 
privileges.  I don't happen to believe that's the right way to go as a 
standards org, but that's obviously just my opinion. 

> Since open source projects are generally not in the business of 
> writing demonstrator code, these RIs tend to be real (Equinox supplies 
> several of these RIs).  There is a certain value to having an RI that 
> is both real and open, thus my interest in whether or not ECF would be 
> in a position to supply an RI.

Yes, I agree there is a lot of value in having a RI that is both real 
and open...and yes, ECF is in a position to supply a RI.  There's a plan 
item for it that

http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF/Plan_for_3.0#Service_Discovery_and_Remote_OSGi_Services

Jan, I added to the item under Remote Services:  "Consider the adoption 
of the OSGi RFC 119 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc119> for discovery 
and remote service. Create a reference implementation based upon ECF. ".

Jan if this plan item doesn't seem right to you please modify as 
appropriate.

Thanks,

Scott


> Having said that, I agree that having an implementation that passes 
> the TCK is the first priority.
>
> Jeff
>
> Rellermeyer Jan Simon wrote:
> > Actually, I don't know but the intention of RIs is not that you download and use them. They are provided by member companies to illustrate the technology for prospective other implementers, allow evaluation of the technology, act as counterpart for developing the TCK, etc. As such, they are only available for other member companies so it doesn't really matter who has written them because nobody will really see them. 
> >
> > Anyway, let's put it like this, there is no need for us to implement anything that serves as a RI but there is definitely demand to implement the RFC so that the open community can use it. 
> >
> > Cheers, 
> >
> > Jan. 
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > MSc Jan S. Rellermeyer, Systems Group, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich
> > IFW B 47.1, Haldeneggsteig 4, CH–8092 Zürich, Switzerland 
> > http://www.systems.ethz.ch
> > ------------------------------------------------------------ 
> >
> >   
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ecf-dev mailing list
> > ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
> >   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ecf-dev mailing list
> ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev
>