[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] Status of Equinox respect to OSGi R4

Well there is (a) implementing all the OSGi specifications (and there are 
many) and (b) faithfully implementing a specifications so that one is 
compliant. These are orthogonal.

Since OSGi is a component model and OSGi defines the specifications to 
many components it is hard to fault someone for not implementing each and 
every component. But if someone does implement a component, we want it to 
implement the specification faithfully and be compliant.

BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx

office: +1 407 849 9117
mobile: +1 386 848 3788




Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/06/2006 01:08 PM
Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] Status of Equinox respect to OSGi R4







yes you are right I should have qualified/scoped that statement.  I 
focused on the framework portions of the core spec and believe that are 
"fully compliant" on all portions related to the framework. 

It might be interesting if OSGi defined a notion of fully compliant or 
perhaps other ways of talking about compliance.  It is not clear how many 
people would be able to (or want to) claim "full" compliance.  As OSGi 
spreads its wings the set of spec'd services grows broader and broader. 
Who would implement all of MEG, VEG, CPEG and now EEG spec'd services? 
Perhaps a few people?  Even within one EG there are services that are 
quite unrelated.   

It would be unfortunate if people started saying "Hmmm, we shouldn't use 
Felix/Equinox/... because it is not *fully* compliant" (wrt all OSGi specs 
or even just CPEG).  It seems anti-thematic to talk about certifying 
collections of loosely coupled components.  Let each component stand on 
its merits and talk about its status. 

Jeff 



"Richard S. Hall" <heavy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
10/06/2006 06:15 PM 

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


To
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
cc

Subject
Re: [equinox-dev] Status of Equinox respect to OSGi R4








Jeff McAffer wrote:
>
> Equinox is the R4 reference implementation so yes, it is compliant

Isn't it possible that such an answer could be misconstrued? Equinox 
does not implement every aspect of the R4 specification. Granted, 
Equinox implements a very large portion of it, but it seems more 
forthright to be clear about what it means to be "fully" compliant, 
which is what was asked.

-> richard

>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> *"Piero Campanelli" <pierocampanelli@xxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 10/06/2006 04:19 PM
> Please respond to
> pc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> 
> To
>                  equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> 
> Subject
>                  [equinox-dev] Status of Equinox respect to OSGi R4
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> What's the status of Equinox respect to R4 spec? Is equinox 
> fully-compliant? According this page not yet.._
> __http://www.eclipse.org/equinox/bundles/_
>
> right?
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev