Working groups are not a container for projects so their names do
not impact the plugin name space. I can't predict the future but I
don't see any need to any other changes.
Ian
On 10/18/2011 2:32 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Ian
Yes, I appreciate that. But presumably at some point
Machine2Machine will migrate from working group to code/projects
at which point the conflicts will arise in the plugin namespaces.
So the conflict needs to be resolved now before it causes trouble.
I know nothing about the Machine2Machine Working Group, so I'm
only guessing at its future. If you can assure us that there will
be no creep from URL to project to plugin, then there is no
problem to me. It just seems odd to start a new initiative with a
shut-off future.
Regards
Ed
On 18/10/2011 19:25, Ian Skerrett wrote:
Ed,
There is no request or requirement to change the name of plugins
or the wiki. We would just like to use the eclipse.org/m2m url.
Ian
On 10/18/2011 1:03 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Ian
The URL is not the problem.
M2M is not just an Eclipse term; I thought it was widely used
in the technology space and academia, where of course M2T and
T2M are also in use. However a quick Google suggests that M2M
is primarily Eclipse and that while 'Model-2-Model' is the
first listing for M2M on Wikipedia that is also just for
Eclipse. The case for squatter's rights for common usage is
therefore not strong.
However as soon as a new M2M takes over, all other Modeling
M2M's will come under pressure. The container project is not a
problem, amd where scoped by modeling, it doesn't need a
change anyway.
One real problem is on the Wiki where M2M is prolific. A new
M2M would need to provide numerous compatibility links so that
all frozen references to e.g. m2m/atl are redirected.
Taking a random Wiki HIT;
What happens to "org.eclipse.m2m.atl.core.ant"
So another real problem is what happens to existing Eclipse
plugin names?
I'm sorry, I can see the container project changing,
(preferably to something short like MtoM, but there are too
many other engrained usages that will be difficult to
discontinue.
Old M2M is already out there and much of it cannot change, so
a new M2M can either create chaos or choose a new name. Surely
this is standard commercial practice, a new business chooses a
new name. My own company when rebranding chose a duplicate and
so has to make do with thalesgroup.com.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 18/10/2011 17:23, Ian Skerrett wrote:
Hi,
The Eclipse Foundation is getting ready to launch an
industry working group in the machine-to-machine space.
The industry accepted term for machine-to-machine is m2m.
Unfortunately this overlaps with the Model-to-Model project
short name and url. We would like to request that the
Model-to-Model project change their url from eclipse.org/m2m
to maybe eclipse.org/model2model. This would allow the
working group to use eclipse.org/m2m.
We are hoping that since Model-to-Model is a container
project that this is not a big deal. We hope to announce
the M2M working group in two weeks, so it would be
appreciated to get feedback in the next couple of days.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
m2m-dev mailing list
m2m-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-dev
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3958 - Release
Date: 10/17/11
_______________________________________________
m2m-dev mailing list
m2m-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-dev
_______________________________________________
m2m-dev mailing list
m2m-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-dev
No virus found
in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3959 - Release Date:
10/18/11
_______________________________________________
m2m-dev mailing list
m2m-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/m2m-dev
|