[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 =
applications =

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=
s case)
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=
tributions =

that have a likelihood of being accepted, and slowing down or dropping out =
contributions =

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=
s =

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=
nd =

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=
o enhance
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...
URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/cgl_discussion/attachments=

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list