[cgl_discussion] AEM in OSDL
Ibrahim Haddad (LMC)
Ibrahim.Haddad at ericsson.ca
Thu Apr 10 16:43:29 PDT 2003
I have been watching the discussion and opinions on AEM and here's feedback:
> Ericsson still feels it's good.
It's not just "feeling it is good" - it is needed. AEM covers =
a new and essential mechanism that is needed. It is not replacing or =
modifying an existing or a well established Linux mechanism. Rather it is a=
a new mechanism. =
CGL without AEM from an Ericsson perspective is not really a carrier grade =
since it will be missing one piece needed by some of our telecom apps. Our =
require AEM and the notion of light processes which are not addressed.
Basically, CGL's mission is to advance the case of Linux in telecom, =
and thus in theory CGL should be helping us advance the case of AEM (in thi=
because it is part of the telecom piece Linux is missing. We can not move t=
o Linux =
without AEM; it provides a native interface for our applications. It's that=
> OSDL suggests low probability acceptance in mainline.
I am not happy to see that OSDL is driving (& putting efforts into) the con=
that have a likelihood of being accepted, and slowing down or dropping out =
that have a less likelihood of acceptance (or maybe just
an impression I have). If the person who accepts/rejects what goes into ker=
nel has =
no idea on AEM - we have to educate him and provide him with necessary info=
understand it and Frederic has produced a very good set of documentation (*=
) to help =
people know AEM and try it and even he provides a document to compare it wi=
other mechanisms. On the other hand, If the person does not want to see AEM =
in - we want to why and how to change that. =
But in all cases, we as OSDL and CGL member companies need to put efforts =
into this the same way things are happening with TIPC and other contributio=
from different companies.
Basically I want to say that the decision of OSDL and other member companie=
investing time/efforts on AEM should not be driven by the feeling if AEM wi=
ll be =
accepted or not. If should more be driven by the fact that this is a needed =
requirement to support telecom applications and we want to work on it to ha=
it accepted. And it is a needed requirement.
For our OSDL & CGL member companies colleagues who do not believe that AEM =
is a needed requirement, we would like to discuss why they feel like that a=
what are the reasons behind it.
> OSDL may create something to address same featureset.
> no idea when that may happen.
I have no idea on why this is even a probability. It simply doesn't make se=
nse to me. =
Why would OSDL go create something similar to AEM if AEM exists. =
It provides us with a mechanism that make us one step ahead close to a carr=
ier grade =
Linux kernel. Why start from zero to build something similar and not work t=
what we currently have.
Just my thoughts on that...
Best regards to all,
(*) this also include a serie of 3 articles on AEM that will be published i=
n the Linux Journal.
* All views expressed are strictly my own and not my employer's *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cgl_discussion