Does it really matter if the meeting was an official/functional meeting of the working group or rather an informal gathering of people with a common interest in OSGi? As I see it, almost all of the attendees
which were present are actual members of the OSGi working group and as such are representing the group on occasions like this. As a long time user of OSGi (mostly within the PDE/tycho stack) I was looking forward to the event. But to be honest I also think
the whole discussion got out of hand in a strange way. Instead of joining forces to improve OSGi/OSGi tooling by finding synergies between the worlds and trying to welcome anyone having an interest in OSGi (coming from a pde, karaf or bndtools background)
the basic message felt like: â€žWhy on earth are you using tycho when you could have bndtools?â€œ. One attendee even stated that he would like to shoot himself in the head using tycho. While I believe this wasnâ€™t coming from a working group member it wasnâ€™t contradicted
or even questioned by anyone (also not by me which I am truely sorry for). If that wasnâ€™t a disrespectful remark, I donâ€™t know. It created a strange atmosphere in the room when I think it rather should have been a friendly open space for the exchange of ideas,
reports on user experiences and talk about the future of OSGi.
One more thought: Whatever tooling you are using working with OSGi: If the user experience in the IDE is bad (buggy, slow, too difficult etc.) people will move on to other technologies /frameworks (and they already
do). Then the specification can be as good as it gets - it wonâ€™t really matter. And while it is not the prime job of the working group we all should share a huge interest in a smart user experience and encourage any effort to improve it. I am very thankful
for the efforts made in bndtools and the work done on the specifications. But I also applaud the big improvements Christoph recently contributed to Tycho/PDE (with a promising roadmap on the horizon; and letâ€™s face it: a lot of developers still work with E4/RCP/Tycho).
So if I could express one big wish for the working group: Talk and work together with anyone interested instead of building fences. The Eclipse Con is a great place for connecting people. It would be cool if
this potential would be used in a much better way.
Von: osgi-wg <osgi-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> im Auftrag von BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 1. November 2022 14:46
An: OSGI Working Group
Betreff: Re: [osgi-wg] [eclipsecon] Some Feedback on "What OSGi-WG can do better to help their users"
|NOTE: This email originated from outside of our organization. Please be mindful of phishing attempts.
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 PDEâ€™s â€œManifest-firstâ€� 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 LÃ¤ubrich <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
Important Notice: This E-Mail and any files attached are confidential and may contain privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not forward or disclose this E-Mail, open any attachments, make any copies or save this E-Mail anywhere.
Please delete this E-Mail from your system and notify the sender (as applicable also by phone +49 2166 266-0). Thank you very much.
To send this email we must process the following personal data: Your email address, first name and surname.
Your data is processed solely for the purpose of sending this email and passed on to third parties only for this purpose.
You have been included in the circle of recipients for our emails due to your professional, social or political position. If this position changes, or you inform us that you do not want to receive emails from us, or you object to the further processing of your data, we will delete your data and no longer use it.