[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ormf-dev] The way forward
- From: Flavelle Ballem <fballem@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:25:50 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Organization: Ballemco Inc.
I don't know if it helps, but as I understand it, useme is a key
component and there are many of us who haven't seen it or worked with
it. I don't know if other components have been identified for the
As a BA, it would be helpful to understand these particular tools
better. In addition, if there are platform specific issues (Linux /
Windows), then these could be identified early.
I am hugely interested in the longer term approach, but I think my value
may come from using specific tools within our (linux) environment as a
consumer. I don't know how difficult that is, and if it is too difficult
or counter-productive in the short-term, then I'll defer to your good
judgement. As well, if you need specific undertakings from us then,
within reason, we will give them.
My two pennies worth (about four cents Canadian at current exchange
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 15:18 +0100, Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> We do not have unanimous agreement on the direction forward. Barbara,
> Wolfgang and I are of the opinion that we should dive in and create
> the long term architecture immediately. Achim is for the more gradual
> approach of first completing Useme "as is" then taking on a gradual
> re-engineering. Ben and Vasile have not expressed opinions. Under
> normal circumstances I would be tempted to simply call for a vote, but
> there are two good reasons that I would prefer if we could discuss
> this out until we have everyone in agreement:
> 1. There are good sound reasons (arguments) for both
> approaches and I think that all of us have come to our
> conclusions after pondering the pros and cons.
> 2. This decision will obviously drive the deliverables
> for the project for the foreseeable future, so it will
> have a significant overall impact.
> I do not think we need to reiterate all of the points here. I do want
> to state, though, that we really do understand Achim's point
> For the time being I'd prefer that we start doing minor tasks
> until a "real team" is established. I'd like to see some
> initial version in the SVN repository. We should start making
> this version work (by replacing invalid parts and fixing
> bugs). This should train the team using distributed
> development tools and methods and to know each others strength
> and weaknesses.
> We simply do not believe that there is any long term value in doing
> that work. Wolfgang's remark to the extent that the community is
> unlikely to spend any time looking at (no less really using) a tool
> that will not be supported in the near future is accurate. So what
> does the project gain from releasing this? I would like to point out
> the even the ORMF team has not seen the value in exercising Useme. The
> smallest hurdle of having to install another JRE stopped
> everyone :-( We also have had several other interested parties who
> requested access, but as soon as they understood it would not be
> released "as-is" their interest dissipated and they never tried it. I
> am anxious to get out a minimal release based on an architecture that
> will evolve.
> Achim, I am also curious as to to why you changed you mind about Jaxen
> vs. EMF. At first you stated "switch to EMF (which I would prefer)",
> but now you seem to have turned 180.
> We look forward to everyone's thoughts and comments.
> All the best,
> B. & me
> ormf-dev mailing list