Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam

Bjorn/Janet,

We're curious what concrete steps need to be taken to ensure that the oAW
brand is contributed to Eclipse as an Eclipse brand, much in the same way
that the tigerstripe commericial brand was donated?  Could you guys please
help us with that?


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 313)




                                                                           
             Richard Gronback                                              
             <richard.gronback                                             
             @borland.com>                                              To 
             Sent by:                  Amalgamation project developer      
             amalgam-dev-bounc         mailing list                        
             es@xxxxxxxxxxx            <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>           
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             04/03/2008 06:59                                      Subject 
             AM                        Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in        
                                       Amalgam                             
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
               Amalgamation                                                
             project developer                                             
               mailing list                                                
             <amalgam-dev@ecli                                             
                 pse.org>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Sven,

I guess the next steps are to do whatever is required to resolve the
branding issue, and to provide a patch through Bugzilla for the UI elements
that would be included in the oAW download.

This week I'm looking into build and packaging options, and would also like
to install all of the modeling components and take a close look at the
current state of all our UI elements.

Best,
Rich


On 4/3/08 3:48 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Rich,
> Great!
> oAW has always been highly extensible. It is for example shipped as
> part of MID's Innovator.
> Other product vendors are also working on integrating it. (Ultimately,
> we'ld love to see every development product on this planet having oAW
> integrated :-))
>
> So, do we agree on making oAW an eclipse brand and creating a
> corresponding component (or subproject) under Amalgamation?
> What could be the next step to push this forward?
>
> atb,
> Sven
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 17:57 , Richard Gronback wrote:
>> Hi Sven,
>>
>> It seems we are not disagreeing.  I understand the history of the
>> oAW brand
>> issue, and if it becomes an Eclipse brand, we're all set.
>> Otherwise, we
>> return to an old discussion about marketing value, commercial vs.
>> non-commercial, vs. academic, etc. that I'd like to avoid
>> altogether.  Most
>> contributions at Eclipse have shed their previous branding/identity,
>> by the
>> way.
>>
>> Components is the way to go, or whatever we call them based on the
>> ongoing
>> discussion of project, subproject, component, etc.  What I'm saying
>> mostly
>> is that they will depend on a common core, from the start.
>>
>> Regarding product vs. project, if what is used by the end user
>> community is
>> not built upon an extensible framework that is consumable by the
>> adopter
>> community, you're not truly living up to the responsibility of being
>> an
>> Eclipse project. We're not here to simply give away tooling, but to
>> support
>> the three defined communities.
>>
>> Best,
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/08 11:31 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rich,
>>>
>>> please find my comments inlined:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with having components within Amalgam that
>>>> represent
>>>> specific workflows with corresponding download configurations.  For
>>>> example,
>>>> an oAW component that includes what you list below, or one that
>>>> covers GMF,
>>>> Xpand, and QVTO.  However, the brand "oAW" seems to not be the most
>>>> descriptive (it's quite vague).
>>>
>>> Sure it's not descriptive.
>>> I don't want to discuss it like that. I think it's clear what it is
>>> about:
>>> We've been developing under this brand for several years. At some
>>> point we started to contribute all our technologies to Eclipse
>>> Modeling. So now there's only the brand left as well as the mentioned
>>> integration code and some components wich of course would fit into
>>> some of our projects (e.g. emft).
>>> We put a lot of work into the brand and simply don't want to throw it
>>> away. Instead we want to contribute it to Eclipse Modeling as well.
>>> It wouldn't be "our" (oAW guys) brand anymore but "ours" (Eclipse
>>> Modeling Guys) ;-). And of course it won't just consist of the X-
>>> Stuff
>>> from oAW but instead would include GMF, EMF, most of the EMFT
>>> components as well as UML2. So it's one possible "amalgamation" named
>>> oAW.
>>>
>>>> Of course, I can't think of anything more
>>>> descriptive than perhaps the "X Modeling" configuration (Xpand,
>>>> Xtend, Xtext
>>>> ;).  I know Ed is keen on seeing the oAW brand become an Eclipse
>>>> brand,
>>>> similar to what Tigerstripe did, afaiu.  In that case, I'm fine with
>>>> the
>>>> name within Amalgam.
>>>
>>> I think Tigerstripe really is a product.
>>> oAW is more like AspectJ which has also been an open-source project
>>> before it came to Eclipse (if i remember correctly).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I don't want are a bunch of contributions that live in
>>>> isolation and
>>>> are not consumable by an adopter, or easily separated. Amalgam is
>>>> not
>>>> delivering "products," but deliverables that can be consumed by an
>>>> adopter,
>>>> while also improving the experience of the end user community.
>>>
>>> Of course, we don't want to see a bunch of contributions livinig in
>>> isolation, too. The only code really would be the "amalgamation"-code
>>> already mentioned.
>>> I don't know what you think what "product" exactly means to you, but
>>> if you don't want to provide a usable piece of software under Eclipse
>>> Modeling I'm a bit confused of what amalgamation is really about.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Understandably, I believe in supporting all 3 communities.
>>>>
>>>> So, the approach I'd like to take with Amalgam is to first form the
>>>> base,
>>>> allowing for extensions that form a set of preconfigured downloads
>>>> (oAW
>>>> being perhaps the first, as you guys are able/willing to
>>>> contribute).
>>>> Furthermore, inspired by the release train requirements list, if a
>>>> project
>>>> does not conform to the proper UI guidelines and make filtering by
>>>> way of
>>>> capabilities possible (for example), they won't be part of Amalgam.
>>>
>>> Again, we really want to provide a good eclipse-ish open-source
>>> solution for MDD.
>>> No extra oAW stuff, just a composition of proven Eclipse technology
>>> and some glue code to improve the user's experience.
>>>
>>> IMHO separate components in Amalgamation would be helpful, because
>>> then we could have a lead, newsgroup, mailing-list and repository for
>>> each component. Of course you as the project lead should still keep
>>> everything in sync, eclipse-ish and the way we all want it to be.
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4/2/08 9:08 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rich,
>>>>>
>>>>> the code we're talking about is integration code like:
>>>>>
>>>>> - an oAW perspective
>>>>> - wizards covering several components at once
>>>>> - cheat sheets and documentation covering the whole stack
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it be possible to have such code in a CVS under amalgamation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the remaining glue code, I can't imagine there is much
>>>>> here.  I'd
>>>>>> like to see a base set of Modeling glue that can be used by
>>>>> adopters, with
>>>>>> perhaps some specific code to accompany each distro.  In the case
>>>>> of oAW,
>>>>>> how is it not just a general Modeling collection that favors Xpand
>>>>> over JET,
>>>>>> Xtend over ATL, Xtext over TCS, etc.?  As discussed at EclipseCon,
>>>>> why not a
>>>>>> general solution that enables/disables capabilities to allow the
>>>>> user to
>>>>>> select the tool collection they prefer?  In this way, each distro
>>>>> may define
>>>>>> a set of defaults, and perhaps some minimal branding.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> amalgam-dev mailing list
> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev

_______________________________________________
amalgam-dev mailing list
amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev




Back to the top