[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] Discussion: Mars simultaneous release participation
- From: Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:39:50 -0800
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
On 11/12/2014 12:30 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:
Your plans are great. I would like to work on the tooling.
I would also like to see work done where the endpoint of a remote
service is not a remote service. For example, we now have some RPi
work but this requires Java and a remote service to run on the Pi.
This will not be feasible in the IoT world because you cannot just run
Java on a resources depleted microcontroller.
However, it would be nice if we could run a remote service on the
manager and something very thin on the microcontroller (e.g. radio,
Infrared, Bleutooth with a tiny comm layer)
I would very much like to see that work done as well. I'm all in
favor...and just to be clear, ECF's provider architecture is the only
RSA implementation that can even begin to address integration of Remote
Services with non java+OSGi RS hosts (in short: by customizing or
creating client-side RS providers that talk to non-OSGi hosts). With
ECF's impl, this is a simple thing.
However, two things:
1) the question of whether ECF should participate in the Mars
simultaneous release is separate any technical planning that we do.
ECF can/will pursue any plans that make sense for ECF consumers,
contributors, and committers...assuming resources are made available to
do the work that we plan for. My own view is that if resources (time,
contributions, etc) are not made available, then it doesn't particularly
matter what we produce as a plan, since we won't have the means to
execute on that plan.
2) Alone, I am currently unable to commit to doing all that's necessary
to meet the requirements for the Mars simultaneous release...especially
since I do think that at least some of my own time/contributions are
better focused more on the plans in  and what you have suggested above.
Given 1 and 2, for me to agree to ECF's participation in Mars, it will
take some specific commitments of resources...from committers,
contributors, members, or someone in addition to myself. That's what
I'm looking for before Dec 12: some commitment that someone is willing
to provide enough resources to make possible our continued participation
in the simultaneous release.