Wednesday, February 27, 2008

OSGi DevCon/EclipseCon

I hope you did register at OSGi DevCon/EclipseCon? It is only three weeks to this event and we would really like to see you there. I think this years program is exceptionally strong. For sure the OSGi DevCon program. It was really hard to choose this year from the large number of excellent proposals.

Do you know that this year the registration includes tutorials? This is the first time I see this in a conference and I think it is an excellent idea. It allows you to choose without having to worry about the financial consequences. The only problem is that there are so many interesting subjects that it is hard to choose.

The supposed dichotomy between services and extensions keeps people occupied. I hope we can finally decide this year when and where to use what. Not only do we have a tutorial, a presentation, but also a panel about this subject. To muddy the waters even further, a Jazz member will speak about a proposal that is supposed to merge the concepts. Whatever comes out of it, I am pretty sure it will be interesting.

On Tuesday we have a BOF at 19:30. The OSGi Alliance board has a meeting in the valley and many of them will be present to talk to you. This will be an excellent moment to tell them your ideas, issues, and maybe kudos. Oh yeah, and there will be drinks!

After the OSGi BOF, there will be a Distributed OSGi BOF that I really want to attend. Easy, it will be in the same room. My famous friend Jeff McAffer will have an Equinox/OSGi BOF on Wednesday so you will be able to find me there as well.

There is an overview page with the whole OSGi DevCon program.

I am really looking forward to see you this year at OSGi DevCon/EclipseCon. If there is only one conference you can go to this year, I urge you to pick this one. Don't wait too long with registering. There is a maximum and it is very likely they will reach this maximum this year.

See you all in Santa Clara!

Peter Kriens


  1. Just finished reading the OSGi core specification. I have several comments:
    1. The PKI in Chapter 2 should have been removed;
    2. The terminology "framework" is misleading, why not use "OSGi container" instead?

  2. Those are interesting remarks but both items were chosen rather carefully. Can you elaborate?

    I do not think OSGi has PKI in its specifications, it only uses certificates because this model is very important for our security model; a requirement that many of our users have. However, it does not mandate a specific infrastructure, we tried to allow as much flexibility as possible.

    What is in a name? I do not like the word container because, today, it implies a silo model like JEE. OSGi is much more collaborative. We tried to make a specification that is as policy free as possible and the policies are implemented as bundles. I think this model captured rather nicely by the word framework; a skeleton where others provide the flesh.

    But I am interested to hear what your arguments are.

    Kind regards,

    Peter Kriens