[cgl_discussion] RE: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interface specification

Timo.Jokiaho at nokia.com Timo.Jokiaho at nokia.com
Wed Jan 8 07:24:25 PST 2003


SA Forum has been working on "fixing" the licensing issue and
I expect it to be solved within a week or so. OSDL already has
a new version of the text for review.

As Lars mentions below, OCF and SAF seem to be, they are, very
similar concerning the technical domain. SAF is OS agnostic, it
is for application portability to some extent, SAF specifies APIs
and it is up to members to create implementations (open source or
commercial products). Even the terminology and the scope and areas
are very close, with the exception that SAF also specifies Hardware
Platform Interface API. But, any way ...

Would be a great opportunity for SAF and OCF folks to meet within
linux world in New York.

Cheers !

  TimoJ, President, SA Forum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Lars Marowsky-Bree [mailto:lmb at suse.de]
> Sent: 08 January, 2003 05:11
> To: ocf at lists.community.tummy.com
> Cc: Wolfram Weyer; OSDL CGL Discussion; Jokiaho Timo 
> (NET/MountainView);
> Turko Henry (NET/MTView); John Easton; Dave.Penkler at Sun.COM;
> Frederic.Herrmann at Sun.COM
> Subject: Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interface
> specification
> On 2003-01-07T08:36:38,
>    "Timothy D. Witham" <wookie at osdl.org> said:
> >   We are waiting to see the "new" license as we have given 
> feedback as
> > to what it should take to make it usable for OSS developers. I
> > understand that we should see something on this by the end of this 
> > month.
> Great.
> >   I think that we will find that there is a bit of a gap 
> between what
> > the SAF has specified and the base functionality that the OS has to
> > implement. I can't be sure as we (OSDL) haven't seen the spec but in
> > talking to people who have it seems that the SAF is aimed more at
> > application portability at the middleware level and not 
> talking directly
> > to the OS.
> Well, OCF is also more about application portability; it 
> doesn't specify
> low-level OS interfaces. So that seems to be quite similar.
> (Okay, so right now it specifies very little at all, but the 
> intent was to be
> 'OS agnostic' as far as possible)
> Sincerely,
>     Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>
> -- 
> Principal Squirrel 
> SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
> "If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the 
> prepared (mind)."
>   -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list