Re: AW: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

can you say more about the mechanism
for "tagging"?  The sorts of media/item in question are
downloads, bundles in the repo, wiki/web information, posts on the mail
list or newsgroup, bugs, ...  Not all need the same level of rigor
perhaps.

Jeff

"Arthur van Dorp" <Arthur.vanDorp@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/14/2007 01:20 AM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Equinox development mailing list" <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	AW: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded

> The challenge is that all 
> partitionings will have problems as different people have different
> views on the world.  would the http service be part of "standard
> services" or "server side"?

As an outsider I'd say use tags. HttpService would be tagged "standard"
as well as "server side". That would naturally involve some work
on both
front and back end and not in itself guarantee that people would easily
find what they are looking for.

Arthur

Jeff McAffer wrote:
> 
> to me it is neither of these options.  It is about community
and
clarity 
> for our consumers.  Walking up to Equinox you just have a sea
of 
> bundles.  Add in the p2 and security stuff and the sea turns
into an 
> ocean.  Say you hear that Equinox has implementations of some
OSGi 
> service specs.  If you go to the download page today you have
to
grovel 
> through spec impls, launchers, random other stuff and cannot tell
one 
> from the other.  Since there is no particular web/wiki page for
people

> interested in spec implementations, it is hard to build a community
> around that topic.   People interested in contributing to standard
spec 
> impls cannot easily find related bugs etc.  There is also no
clear
lead 
> of that community who is plotting the course/planning, coordinating
> execution, building the community, ...  You can replace OSGi
service 
> spec with p2, security, ...  
> 
> A number of these issues can be addressed simply by structuring the
> download site or wiki or...  If you address most of them then
in
effect 
> you have just created a component without actually creating a
component. 
>  So what are we afraid of?  Why not reify the structure
we think we
have?
> 
> That begs the question, what is the structure? The challenge is that
all 
> partitionings will have problems as different people have different
> views on the world.  would the http service be part of "standard
> services" or "server side"?  However the existance
of issues need not 
> stop progress or movement.  So this discussion is really about
defining 
> that structure.  At least thats my view...
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> *BJ Hargrave <hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 09/12/2007 05:13 PM
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>                  
> To
>                  Equinox
development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  Re:
[equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the point of the proposed change?  Tom's mail suggests
we
> subdivide bundles. But in what way? To organize commit rights or bugs
in
> bugzilla? Or both? I guess that is what is not clear. Clarity here
will
> help us evaluate choices. It seems we can easily have M bugzilla
> components and N commit right sets with M >=N. Right now (for bundles)
M
> and N both equal 1. Are we looking to increase M or N or both?
> -- 
> 
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> office: +1 386 848 1781
> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 2007-09-12 16:03
> Subject:
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes but under the new plan you pointed out, the commit rights will
be
> managed by groups and groups will have a 1:1 relationship to
components
> and components will have associated leads, bugzilla entries, websites,
...
> This is alot of infrastructure to put in place for each bundle.
> 
> We did "bundles" originally because we could not come up
with any
> reasonable partitioning of the space.  To date we have gotten
away
with it
> because a) the number of bundles in there was relatively low and b)
many
> have very little activity.  As Tom points out, this is changing.
 Our
> solution space seem to be N bundles => 1 group, N groups or M groups
where
> 1 < M < N.  Unfortunately, it is still not clear that there
is a
> reasonable grouping so while (at least to me) M groups feels like
a
good
> spot, it will be challenging.  Here are some thoughts
> - "framework" = the framework.  This stays unchanged
> - "standard" = bundles that implement OSGi standard services
> - "p2"
> - "security" = if needed
> - "bundles" = catch all for things that don't fit  
> 
> This is just a stake in the ground.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 03:42 PM
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> To
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since "component" is a confusing term, I should clarify
my comments on
> this.  I like the idea of being more fine-grained with Unix groups
(CVS
> commit rights), because I think it encourages new committers. If
someone
> joins the community with a strong interest in a narrow area (such
as
> security or provisioning), but isn't interested in the rest of the
> framework, they could quickly earn commit rights in that area, without
> having to give them write access to other code they aren't qualified
to
> maintain (or aren't interested in maintaining).  On the question
of
> bugzilla components, I don't particularly care whether we have one
or
ten
> - these are fairly easy to change over time as the need arises.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 03:24 PM
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> To
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree one component per bundle is probably overkill.  However,
it's
not
> necessarily true that the CVS commit groups match 1-1 with Bugzilla
> groups. While it's often convenient to do it this way, it's not a
> constraint that we need to conform to.  I should also add that
the EMO
has
> a plan under consideration for standardizing the group structure for
Unix
> groups, and part of this work is to facilitate election across
multiple
> groups (see item 6 in
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=77092).  Essentially,
> simultaneously nominating an individual for N groups would only
require a
> single election, and a single vote per committer. Just some things
to
> consider...
> 
> 
> Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 02:47 PM
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> To
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two extreme positions to take. Lump a large number of
loosely
> related deliverables under one component or create a separate
component
> for each and every deliverable. I'm not sure I favor the latter
extreme.
> Currently the Equinox download page allows you to download each bundle
> individually so each bundle is a separate downloadable item. Creating
a
> separate component for each and every bundle in Equinox may prove
to
be
> too much overhead. It is my understanding that in Eclipse typically
every
> bugzilla component has its own set of commit rights in CVS. If we
have
a
> very high number of components then we will be holding a very large
number
> of committer elections to get all the committers the access they need
:-)
> 
> I think we a balance and create components as we see fit to split
up
the
> different work areas in Equinox instead of creating a component for
every
> bundle.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> BJ Hargrave---09/12/2007 12:31:35 PM---It would probably be best if
each
> separately downloadable item had its own
> BJ Hargrave/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 12:30 PM
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To
> 
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably be best if each separately downloadable item had
its
own
> 
> component against which people could file bugs.
> -- 
> 
> BJ Hargrave
> Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
> OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
> hargrave@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> office: +1 386 848 1781
> mobile: +1 386 848 3788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> To:
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 2007-09-12 12:34
> Subject:
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> For the security stuff I was referring to the security-specific
bundles
> like login (JAAS integration etc.)
> 
> You are right there is a lot of cross-cutting concerns with the other
> security related work that will not really fit into any one component.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> John Arthorne ---09/12/2007 11:25:42 AM---Creating a new component
for
p2
> definitely makes sense to me. I don't know much about the security
work,
> but that may be diffi
> 
> John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 11:21 AM
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To
> 
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> cc
> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creating a new component for p2 definitely makes sense to me. I don't
know
> 
> much about the security work, but that may be difficult to partition
into
> its own component because it's an inherently cross-cutting concern.
If
> there end up being a number of security-specific bundles, it may make
> sense.
> 
> Generally speaking, I think more components is a good thing. It's
a
great
> way to bring in new committers who may not be able to make the large
> commitment needed to contribute across a large part of Equinox.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 09/12/2007 11:42 AM
> 
> 
> Please respond to
> Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> To
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> cc
> 
> Subject
> [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Equinox project continues to grow with new components and new
> contributes being added. Thanks everyone!!
> 
> As new contributions are graduated into Equinox proper we need to
place
> them under one of the existing components. Currently we have the
> "Framework" and "Bundles" components for Equinox
proper in
bugzilla/cvs. A
> 
> large majority of the new contributions will fall into the "Bundles"
> component. For example, we have a few work areas in the equinox
incubator
> which are very active (e.g. p2, security etc). Once this work
graduates it
> 
> will likely to be placed into the generic "Bundles" component.
This
will
> make an already crowded component even more crowded.
> 
> Should we consider creating a more diverse set of components for the
work
> which is graduated into Equinox? I think the p2 and security work
will
> deserve their own component when they graduate. Thoughts?
> 
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> 
> (See attached file: pic01850.gif)
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> equinox-dev mailing list
> equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev