[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Evolving the OpenUP Family
|
>> If you *really* want to separate
out the plugins from the core, then you will need to create a CVS location
for each extending plugin and put a copy of OpenUP and base_concepts in
there, so that more than 1 user can work on that plugin at a time.
I'm aware of your concerns in points
1, 2 and 3 below, Mark.
And what I initially proposed reflects
your comment extracted above. I didn't mean to keep copies in local machines,
but in different branches in CVS.
However, you have a good point on whether
this approach scales or not, as the plug-ins community grows and more and
more dependencies are needed between plug-ins.
Thanks for giving your input, even with
you kids bouncing on your head :-)
Ricardo Balduino
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)
Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2007 02:19 PM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "Epf" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [epf-dev] Evolving the OpenUP Family |
|
Ricardo
Your original email threw me a bit there, as it opened by saying that you
were prompted by feedback from the user community, which I took to mean
"not the developer community." That's why I assumed we were discussing
what is essentially a publishing issue.
I don't have access to the newsgroup discussion right now, so I cannot
comment on the original post on the subject.
I have a substantial objection to the idea of seperating out the plugin(s)
from the main OpenUP CVS repository. The approach of periodically uploading
export files does not sound acceptable to me, as it means that the real
source lives locally on someones machine, outside of the eclipse CVS servers.
I see 3 problems with this:
1. We effectively limit plugin development to 1 user teams. This was a
big problem for me on the openup/DSDM work, as it was very difficult to
share the definitive source.
2. We have an obvious config mgmnt risk around source content residing
on someone's personal computer.
3. I am not sure that this model of development is in the spirit of open
source, as it does not allow unrestricted access to the latest source.
If you *really* want to seperate out the plugins from the core, then you
will need to create a CVS location for each extending plugin and put a
copy of OpenUP and base_concepts in there, so that more than 1 user can
work on that plugin at a time.
Furthermore, if that plugin project wants to reuse content from other plugins
in the OpenUP family, then guess what? You have to put copies of those
plugins in there too.
As the plugin community grows, I am sure that this approach will quickly
break down, as it doesn't look like it is going to scale too well.
It seems much simpler to me to keep the OpenUP family in one library. We
can accommodate end user requirements through publishing discrete libraries
for those who want them.
I am on holiday right now but am concerned enough about this issue to reply.
I can't join the call though. Can I ask that you don't make any final judgement
on this until I get back from leave on w/c Aug 20? I would like to discuss
this in person as email exchanges don't always work too well as a discussion
medium (especially if you're thumbing away on your blackberry while the
kids are trying to bounce on your head).
Cheers
Mark
Mark Dickson
EAS Practice
Xansa
0780 1917480
*** sent from my blackberry ***
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Balduino [balduino@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08/07/2007 08:25 PM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Evolving the OpenUP Family
Mark, thanks for your comments.
Currently, the libraries are not separated - OpenUP/DSDM plug-in is part
of the OpenUP library. There are two separate published web sites though.
My discussion below is indeed relevant to development, as I pointed out.
>From user perspective, the request is to be able to download plug-ins one
by one, as needed (see newsgroup for original posting).
Solution b) below is the workaround proposed to the user in the newsgroup.
Solution a) below is the alternative I'm considering for discussion with
you all. There are pros and cons, as you would expect, that's why I'm bringing
to the committers' attention - the decision is whether we make our lives
or EPF users lives easier :-)
I'd love to have the capability of referencing external libraries too,
but EPF Composer does not provide that.
Cheers,
Ricardo Balduino
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)
Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2007 11:29 AM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| "Epf" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [epf-dev] Evolving the OpenUP Family |
|
Hi
I won't be able to join the call tomorrow, so here's what I think about
this.
This looks like a publishing issue. We can rsikly make the libraries available
as separate downloads very easily. I think that is what we do right now.
The majority of the discussion in Ricardo's note seems to address the structure
of the CVS repository. This seems to me to be development concern rather
than an end user issue.
Speaking from hard learned experience, I can say that I definitely do not
want to be working with the scenario as described. Plugins in the OpenUP
family should reside in the same library (or EMC should have functionality
added to enable external libraries to be referenced, as per RMC).
If this really is an end-user issue, then it is a simple matter for users
to either:
a) download the discrete libraries from the download page; or
b) download the library from CVS and delete the plugins they don't want.
For development, it is much better to leave things in the same library.
Kind regards
Mark
Mark Dickson
EAS Practice
Xansa
0780 1917480
*** sent from my blackberry ***
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Balduino [balduino@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08/07/2007 07:04 PM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Evolving the OpenUP Family
Hi all, sorry for the long email, but I think it's an important topic for
our planning meeting tomorrow.
We've got some user feedback expressing it would be much easier to assemble
libraries with various plug-ins as needed, meaning the OpenUP library by
default should contain base_concepts and openup plug-ins only, then any
additions could be download from Eclipse web site. In other words, one
wants to download OpenUP without having to deal with other plug-ins they
don't plan to use on near or long term.
As this is simple to solve from the user perspective, it may pose some
challenges from content development perspective.
- From user perspective, EPF Composer offers today the capability for exporting
and importing plug-ins. We can simply provide OpenUP library with openup
and base_concepts plug-ins only, then users pick and choose any OpenUP/xyz
from EPF web site and import it to their library. The web site download
area would be populated with these plug-ins. For user's convenience, we
can periodically publish these various configurations and make it readily
available for download.
- From development perspective, every extension to OpenUP plug-in should
*ideally* be created in the OpenUP library itself, because it makes it
easier from the version control perspective to handle the various xmi files
individually. If you separate plug-ins in different libraries, plug-in
authors will have to keep copies of OpenUP in a sandbox location, develop
their plug-ins as extension to OpenUP, export those plug-ins from time
to time, add them to CVS as a zip file, them make available for download
by users. We loose granularity in our version control, and are obliged
to keep local copies of OpenUP library.
UNLESS these sandbox locations are also in CVS, in a different branch than
the main OpenUP library. Authors can work on their plug-ins and commit
individual xmi files to CVS - the only caveat for plug-in authors is to
keep this sandbox OpenUP up-to-date with most current main OpenUP. Exports
of their plug-ins would occur as part of periodically builds, so plug-ins
can be made available in the download area.
That approach tries to solve the fact that EPF Composer does not work with
multiple projects from different workspaces.
Conclusion: I don't believe separating the OpenUP extensions from the main
OpenUP library in CVS will harm the concept of OpenUP Family. Moreover,
that makes it easier for plug-ins to evolve at different pace than the
OpenUP library itself is evolving, and multiple authors can work their
solution in parallel. Also, those authors can take the responsibility of
uploading their plug-ins and updating the web site themselves- sort of
sharing web master's responsibilities :-)
What is your take on this? We can discuss it during our planning meeting
tomorrow.
Thanks,
Ricardo Balduino
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)
Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should
undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability
whatsoever.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected
by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
Registered in England No.1000954.
t +44 (0)8702 416181
w www.xansa.com_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should
undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability
whatsoever.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected
by client privilege. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.
Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
Registered in England No.1000954.
t +44 (0)8702 416181
w www.xansa.com_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev