Re: [rt-pmc] Re: Virgo

[Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As a RT PMC colead I would like to see as much of the RT technology used in as many places as possible. I strongly believe that Eclipse technologies should be consumed by Eclipse projects wherever possible.  I have (and will continue to) pushed hard to have various projects use Eclipse bits. This is good for everyone IMHO.

That approach needs to be tempered with the reality that pre-existing projects such as Virgo and Jetty have many existing consumers and those consumers often know only some sort of non-eclipse style distribution (whatever that means in the particular case). It is critical that these consumer requirements not be ignored.  Jetty has, for various reasons, chosen to continue its "legacy" deliverables at Codehaus in the near term. Seems like Virgo/Gemini are looking to put those deliverables at Eclipse if possible. There may well be similar IP challenges and a backup position may be needed. That process will unfold as the project evolves.

Other projects such as Swordfish have chosen to use technology from Apache and elsewhere in lieu of Eclipse projects and seem to have no intention of changing. While this is disappointing, the community has trust the project teams to know what they are doing and to be open to others helping with the adoption of Eclipse technology. Projects that are not open to such help would need to explain in great detail why.

In the case of Gemini and Virgo, the proposing teams have made several positive openness statements. While they have working solutions using Apache etc technology, it is my personal hope is that over time the projects will produce releases that include the maximum possible EclipseRT technology.  This includes the use and distribution of Jetty. How they get their and who does the work is going to be something of a community decision. 

I suggest that the relevant parties get together at EclipseCon for a couple hours and a couple beer and just hack. For all we know it just works and there is really no technical issue. Then it becomes one of satisfying community demand--give the community the choice and see what happens.

Jeff

Jeff McAffer | CTO | EclipseSource | +1 613 851 4644
jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://eclipsesource.com

On 2010-01-13, at 6:16 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:

> Sure, I have no issues keeping discussion on the public lists.  I am
> just curious as to the rational behind having the default web
> container for another project coming in under the Eclipse Runtime
> being something other then another Runtime project that (afaik) does
> everything needed.
> 
> Perhaps its my inexperience at eclipse and with the process that
> eclipse advocates but:
> 
> * Is it not the goal of the Runtime project to encourage the projects
> being accepted into it to leverage each other where appropriate, and
> where appropriate be each others default components?  indeed one of
> our goals with jetty is the be the default implementation for equinox
> (which we were before) but also to further enhance that
> relationship...we have made a lot of strides on that recently with
> hugues's jetty-osgi efforts and will be shortly able to publish a more
> comprehensive update site aside from my previous manually created one.
> 
> * On the offer to have jetty committers be the responsible party for
> providing the integration portion of virgo...correct me if I am wrong
> here but wouldn't that be a part of Virgo itself and fall under the
> 'playing nice with the neighbors' clause for the Eclipse Runtime
> project? I am fine with answering questions and helping out where I
> can but am lukewarm on taking on new development tasks.
> 
> Just so its absolutely clear I am not going on some <rawr>Jetty needs
> to be the default container!</rawr> rant here, but I thought it was
> the goal that runtime projects are 'encouraged' to use each others as
> defaults...our 'default' test platform for osgi related things is now
> equinox whereas before (at least I) tested osgi bundles out on felix.
> 
> As to the requirements to support existing users, I can offer up us as
> an example, we have maintained an external distribution because we
> have historical users that expect a certain set of functionality as
> well, but we maintain that at The Codehaus since much of it would not
> come through the intensive Eclipse IP validation process, third party
> integrations etc, but then we also have our eclipse jetty distribution
> which bundles only approved, IP clean dependencies in the download
> bundles.
> 
> anyway..I am looking forward to seeing how this stuff comes together,
> it sounds like it could be a fun project and a useful addition to the
> eclipse runtime family
> 
> 
> cheers!
> jesse
> 
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:54, Mike Milinkovich
> <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Please keep these conversations visible and transparent. The PMC list or the
>> Virgo forum would both be fine.
>> 
>>> I am happy to continue the discussion, preferably on the Virgo forum, or
>>> via email or skype (glyn.normington) if you would prefer an informal chat.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rt-pmc mailing list
>> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc