Re: [modeling-pmc] Works-with dependency for CQ 4861

[Miles Parker <milesparker@xxxxxxxxx>]

I thought that *was* the architecture diagram and I was really impressed. Very flexible and open-ended.

On Mar 3, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Eike Stepper wrote:

> Right Honourable PMC Members,
> 
> I'd say Miles is perfectly correct. This is no different from DTP's situation. Maybe with the exception that CDO can generally be fully functional without *any* third party component. This fact makes me think that, in the future, when we want to integrate with further backend types, we can simply refer to this discussion here and repeat
> 
>    CDO does not need any third party component to provide the specified functionality, so any third party component that CDO can work with is in fact an optional/works-with dependency.
> 
> For those that still don't belive, I've prepared an architecture diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> HTH ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> /Eike
> 
> ----
> http://www.esc-net.de
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
> 
> 
> Am 03.03.2011 17:29, schrieb Ed Merks:
>> Miles,
>> 
>> Yes, I don't see the real problem either, but t's need to be crossed.  :-P
>> 
>> I'll ask Eike to explain the details.  We'd like, in the future, to avoid having a long discussion about all the variations of back-end integration that CDO could support and would like to support.  It really only needs to support one EPL-compatible version such that all the rest are merely work-with dependencies.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> Miles Parker wrote:
>>> Looks good to me, Ed. :) But then I can't see what the problem would be in the first place. (Is it the case that CDO needs an OODB and the DB40 is the only provider? Otherwise how is this any different then day DTP shipping multiple drivers for MySQL, Progress, Oracle...?)
>>> 
>>> On Mar 2, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Ed Merks wrote:
>>> 
>>>   
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I approvedhttps://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4861  based on the discussion in this threadhttp://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/emf-dev/msg01258.html  but the IP team wants it discussed by the PMC.  Does anyone have concerns that need further discussion?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ed
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> modeling-pmc mailing list
>>>> modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
>>>>     
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> modeling-pmc mailing list
>>> modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
>>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> modeling-pmc mailing list
> modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc