[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
AW: [jwt-dev] Feedbacks on JWT extensions from Bull Team.
|
Hi Marc,
as I have just seen: you are now a fully complete committer of the JWT
project. So welcome first! :-)
This probably also resolves one of your concerns how to contribute your
code. As Mickael outlines correctly, the way new code should come to JWT is
normally always with a new bug and attached code which the others can then
review. With minor modifications it is okay to make them directly in the
code, but bigger ones should always be cared for in an own bug. This allows
to trace the requirements, comments, etc. back without searching through all
emails that happened somewhen :-)
We'll have a look at your code, test it, have a look at the headers,
license, etc. and come back to you on the corresponding bug again!
Best regards,
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Marc Blachon
Gesendet: 02 February 2009 16:57
An: Java Workflow Toolbox
Betreff: Re: [jwt-dev] Feedbacks on JWT extensions from Bull Team.
Hi Mickael,
Thanks for your answer. I created the following bug (with attached jwt-we
patch ans sample plug-in).
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=263241
Regards,
Marc.
Mickael Istria a écrit :
> Hello Marc,
>
> I think the best way to integrate your contributions is to open a bug
> where you attach a patch with your modifications and some comments
> this contribution.
> Then any interested contributor can take a look at it and maybe
> propose some improvements and ensure your patch conforms to Eclipse
> requirements (really important for Galileo).
>
> Once everybody is ok, we will let you commit it to the jwt-we head.
>
> Thus, please open a bug and attach your code (as a patch if possible).
> If possible, please also attach your Bonita extension to facilitate
> the "review". Then you'll get feedback and approval for commit.
>
> Regards,
> Mickael
>
> Marc Blachon a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Pierre gave feedbacks two weeks ago about Bull work on the concept of
>> FactoryRegistry.
>> I did the required two steps listed previously by Pierre:
>> - resolve JWT compilation issues
>> - resolve conflicts between our modifications of jwt-we and yours
>> And I'm now ready to propose our modifications for a commit.
>> How can we proceed in order to commit these modifications ?
>>
>> Note: I'm not yet JWT committer but Pierre is and can do it quickly.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc.
>>
>>
>> Pierre Vigneras a écrit :
>>> Sorry for a long time without feedbacks. Here is the status on our
>>> side.
>>>
>>> 1. We started from a complete checkout of JWT that we committed on
>>> our own forge for our convenience (can test things without breaking
>>> JWT..., By the way, at that time, none of us were committers).
>>>
>>> 2. Refactor JWT so it fits our requirements. We implemented the
>>> concept of FactoryRegistry as an extension point. This registry
>>> contains all factories used by JWT : ImageFactory, FigureFactory,
>>> EditPartFactory, and PaletteFactory. JWT has been modified to
>>> provide a default FactoryRegistry which provide the same behaviour
>>> (aka same factory implementation) as before.
>>>
>>> 3. Create a Bonita extension of JWT that fulfill our requirements.
>>> Basically, Bonita provides another implementation of the
>>> FactoryRegistry through the extension point. This implementation is
>>> smart enough to use some stuff of JWT (some icons, some figures,
>>> some editparts) *and* some of ours (our BPMN icons, our BPMN
>>> figures, our own editparts). Thus, from our point of view, extending
>>> not only means adding but also removing some parts, and adapting
>>> others. This is done by the factory patterns that is both quite
>>> simple and very powerful. Currently the EditPartFactory does not
>>> fulfill our expectation in terms of software quality but it works.
>>> We are working on a nicer solution (currently, a classloader has to
>>> be passed to JWT so it can load the correct Bonita class).
>>> All this work is currently in our forge at the following location :
>>> JWT Extended Prototype :
>>> http://svn.forge.objectweb.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/bonita/trunk/jwt-
>>> we-proto/
>>>
>>>
>>> Bonita Extension on top of JWT extended prototype :
>>> http://svn.forge.objectweb.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/bonita/trunk/stud
>>> io/
>>>
>>> 4. Marc Blachon did a cvs checkout of JWT in order to see and
>>> resolve conflicts, and to start the merging of our proposition
>>> (FactoryRegistry and JWT-only implementations). Unfortunately, he
>>> found some compilation issues with the new JWT versions that he was
>>> unable to solve. He is currently on leave.
>>> Next steps will be :
>>> 1. Resolve current JWT compilation issues ; 2. Resolve conflicts
>>> between our modifications of JWT and yours.
>>> 3. Propose our modifications for a commit.
>>> 4. Possibly Commit (depending on feedbacks).
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jwt-dev mailing list
> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
>
>
--
Marc Blachon
Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
BPM Team, Bull R&D
1, rue de Provence
38130 Echirolles (France)
Direct Line: +33-4-76-29-74-80
*Orchestra*, The BPEL open source project: http://orchestra.objectweb.org
*Bonita*, The XPDL open source project: http://bonita.objectweb.org
_______________________________________________
jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
