Re: [rt-pmc] Re: Virgo

[Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff McAffer wrote:
> On 2010-01-13, at 11:36 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> 
>> If it Virgo/Gemini were going to continue to use felix and expected the equinox
>> team to make the effort to maintain integrations, then I don't think this issue
>> would be punted to a beer and hacking session at the next eclipsecon.
> 
> I was not intending to make light of this by "punting". 
> Rather my expectation and understanding was that the integration effort would require
> a joint effort with understanding on both sides and that by the time any of this
> code is available in a repo etc it will be EclipseCon. It may turn out that the
> integration is very straightforward and an excellent way to find out is to huddle
> at EclipseCon when the relevant parties are physically co-located.

Well I think everybodies vision of how this will happen (as a cooperative
process between two projects) is pretty much the same.

It's just that we differ on if this should be a defacto informal arrangement
or a commitment that a new project coming to rt makes to lead the effort
to integrate with other relevant rt projects.


> From my point of view, to be "eclipse", a project output must be able to be 
> run on Equinox. This is a consumer level statement.

Well there is the double standard!   Why can't we say to be "eclipse" a project
must be able to run on Jetty or eventually on Gemini and Virgo?

Now it may be that RT want's to have a double standard (and that is
not necessarily a bad thing), ie that they want to make Equinox special within
the RT family- but if so, that should be made very explicit.

It was not made explicit to us, and we would like to have the option to
bring jetty dependent projects to eclipse RT that don't run with Equinox.

To me the attraction to eclipse RT was the focus on component based
development - were uses can pick the bits they like and integrate them
into a whole - probably, but not necessarily, using  Equinox as the glue.


> In any event, that is a bit off topic and I don't think we are at or even 
> near that point. Everyone is saying they are willing to make it happen, so lets do it!

For me the topic is why must a new project commit to working with Equinox,
but not be expected to make a similar commitment for other related RT projects.

The web container is a significant part of RT and Virgo/Gemini.  All I'm
looking for is a commitment for the two projects to work together.

That has been made on this list, so why can't it be made in the proposal?



> It seems like the Gemini/Virgo folks are willing to pitch in and the Jetty 
> folks have said similar things so what really is left is to tweak the projects
> to recognize that "co-committment" and make available, in a first class way,
> a Jetty-based releases.

So if everybody is happy for this to happen, then what's the problem
with saying as much in the project proposal?


> This integration need not happen immediately as I'm sure that there will be a 
> ton of work just getting the initial contribution in but it would be ideal to
> set a timeline.

Agreed.  So it's even more important that it is formally included in the
project proposal so that it does not get forgotten and does get done
pre first release.   It needs to be driven from Virgo and not from Jetty
popping up every few weeks  and saying: "are you ready yet? are you ready
yet? are you ready yet?"



> Just a quick closing not.  This kind of discussion is exactly why we have a 
> proposal phase. It lets folks surface issues, volunteer additional 
> contributions, voice support, ...  Its good to see the process working.

+1


cheers