The BOF at EclipseCon was not an official OSGi WG function. It was just people interested in OSGi technology getting together. So, the fact that some people in attendance expressed a technical dislike of PDE’s
“Manifest-first” approach must not be taken as some official position of the OSGi WG. OSGi community members often wear many hats. They contribute to OSGi specification developments as well as open source projects which implement OSGi specifications and OSGi
tooling. People will have personal preferences for the projects they work on.
Tools are a concern of all developers. We all have many tools to choose from to accomplish our jobs. As far as the OSGi specifications go, they do specify behaviors for tooling but do not prescribe specific
tool implementations. For example, DS annotation processing is specified and multiple tool implementations process them (e.g., Bnd, PDE). I would not support the OSGi WG or OSGi specifications mandating any specific tooling implementation. But I also support
individuals having opinions and preferences.
Finally, I object to your characterization that the BOF was not
"respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences". Many viewpoints were expressed but not all viewpoints were agreed with by all in attendance. Each person was able to express their viewpoint in a professional manner.
No person was treated unprofessionally or disrespectfully. Disagreeing with a viewpoint does not imply disrespect of the person expressing that viewpoint.
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM // office: +1 386 848 1781
OSGi Fellow and OSGi Specification Project lead // mobile: +1 386 848 3788
osgi-wg <osgi-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Christoph Läubrich <laeubi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, October 28, 2022 at 04:50
To: OSGI Working Group <osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [osgi-wg] [eclipsecon] Some Feedback on "What OSGi-WG can do better to help their users"
At the EclipseCon there was a "Birds of a Feather" of the OSGi-WG and
it was asked what could the working-group do for their users and what
they want to see for the future or haven any issues with OSGi.
Sadly this quickly turned into a very scary rant about Tycho/PDE and how
bad that is and BND is all the glory solution, even we don't have had
know what problem the user in question was facing as he just complained
about missing documentation (What is a valid point, so please everyone
participate here to improve it )!
I was really saddened about that and also other people I talked to
afterwards where quite perplexed ... this really does not feel open,
welcoming or "respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" it
was nothing I would summarize under "community friendly" as stated as a
goal in the happy new year letter from the OSGi-WG.
I think there are always different users, different tools and different
ways so solve problems, I even always try to push eclipse-platform
towards using OSGi best practice (some even would say 'annoy them with')
and increase interoperability between Tycho/BND or other tools and even
contribute to many of them, so user have the *choice* what best fits
This actually has leave me back in a very very bad mood thinking about
if it is even worth to still try participate in OSGi-WG at all and if I
just should unsubscribe from all the channels and leave it alone.
But actually that's not a solution for me and so finally I'd like to
propose some "What OSGi-WG can do better to help their users":
1) WG should decide weather tools are a concern of the working-group or not
2a) If tools are a concern and OSGi-WG decides that there is only "one
tool to bnd them all"  the tool should become part of the OSGi
repository, developed and managed under the charta of the OSGi-WG
2b) If tools are a concern and OSGi-WG agree that there is a diversity
of tools and techniques for using/building OSGi or tools are considered
no concern, it would be really beneficial for the people highly involved
in WG+Tools to trying to be aware of what "role" they currently like to
represent in a certain situation and being "vendor neutral", as OSGi
claims to be, when choosing the OSGi-WG role.
Thanks for patiently reading my mail and feel free to either contact me
directly or discuss it on the list if you feel to give any feedback.
osgi-wg mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit