[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] RE: Committer nomination for Tom Schindl
|
Hey Ed,
The EMF runtime for devices is a fantastic idea. I do not think
Foundation 1.1 compatible EMF would be enough though. The ultra-weight
EMF has a better chance on devices.
--
Gorkem
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Boris,
>
> I'd like to be an e4 committer too! To begin with, I'd like to help with
> this new model exploration work. I can imagine all kinds of things we
> might want to bring to the platform that relate to modeling. For example,
> I've already been prototyping things like EMF for eRCP and RAP. I could
> imagine that we might want to take the work I've done with EMF 2.2 to
> enable eRCP/Foundation 1.1 and perhaps work towards an ultra light weight
> (pruned-down) version of the EMF 2.2 runtime that would still be binary
> compatible with the Java 5.0-exploiting version of the evolving 2.x stream.
> I'd like to explore all the cool things that are possible when you bring
> data binding and data modeling together. I'm just full of ideas, but I'd
> better turn the fire hose off... Do I need to mention that I have a proven
> track record? :-P
>
>
> Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
>
>
>
>
>
> Boris
> Bokowski/Ottawa/I
> BM@IBMCA To
> Sent by: E4 developer list
> eclipse-incubator <eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@eclipse.o
> -e4-dev-bounces@e rg>
> clipse.org cc
>
> Subject
> 04/05/2008 12:24 [eclipse-incubator-e4-dev] RE:
> PM Committer nomination for Tom
> Schindl
>
> Please respond to
> E4 developer list
> <eclipse-incubato
> r-e4-dev@eclipse.
> org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just in case this could be misunderstood - if others are interested in
> working with us on e4, I would also nominate them as committers in the same
> way that I nominated Tom. Being a committer on the Platform project is not
> a prerequisite. ;-)
>
> Writing to the mailing list about what you would like to do *is* a
> prerequisite, though.
>
> Boris
>
> eclipse-incubator-e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/05/2008 11:09:07
> AM:
>
> > Kevin wrote:
> > > At the risk of killing momentum, I'd like to suggest that this
> > > investigation would work best if someone on the platform team (yes,
> > > I'm looking at you Eric <g>) were involved to whatever degree it
> > > made sense.
> >
> > I am a little surprised - Kevin did you realize that Tom is *already* a
> > member of the Platform team, as a Platform UI committer?
> >
> > Yes, Eric should be involved in this, but I also think that Tom should be
> > allowed to do the same thing Eric has done - produce some experimental
> code
> > to be used in the discussion (code speaks!) - and I have therefore
> > nominated Tom as an e4 committer.
> >
> > For higher-bandwidth communication, we can use the #eclipse-dev channel
> > (see http://wiki.eclipse.org/IRC). I know that both Eric and Tom can be
> > found there regularly. Please remember to post occasional updates to the
> > mailing list as well...
> >
> > Boris
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list
> > eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list
> eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list
> eclipse-incubator-e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
>
