|Re: [osgi-wg] [eclipsecon] Some Feedback on "What OSGi-WG can do better to help their users"|
As a long time OSS developer I've had my fair share of run-ins with "community" members that resort to wishfully thinking of murdering someone or committing suicide in order to get their "point" across. I've even had it mentioned in bug reports that whoever wrote some piece of code (me) should be taken out back and shot in the head! In the end, it only demoralizes ones that work on the projects they are complaining about with no constructive outcome (which is likely what they wanted anyway!).
I was not in the room so do not know the full context of such statements. But I would not want it to detract any existing efforts to make tycho/pde better. I believe diversity in the tools is great! I think the usefulness of BND has driven PDE/tycho to also be better and I look forward to tycho/pde to hopefully continue to improve their useability.
From: osgi-wg <osgi-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Rumpf, Mike <Rumpf.Mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 2:39 PM
To: OSGI Working Group <osgi-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [osgi-wg] [eclipsecon] Some Feedback on "What OSGi-WG can do better to help their users"
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: „Why on earth are you using tycho when you could have bndtools?“. One attendee even stated that he would like to shoot himself in the head using tycho. While I believe this wasn’t coming from a working group member it wasn’t contradicted or even questioned by anyone (also not by me which I am truely sorry for). If that wasn’t a disrespectful remark, I don’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 won’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 let’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"
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.
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.
Back to the top