From: rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Watson
Sent: June-02-10 11:49 AM
To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal
I am not sure this is the proper place to bring
this up. Or even a real concern. There is an existing potomac framework (https://fef.potomacfusion.com/main/home)
out there that is not related to flex. But it does seem to offer a common
framework runtime similar in concept to OSGi and EclispeRT.
Tom
Jeff McAffer ---06/02/2010 09:00:43 AM---Seems like it.
|
From:
|
Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To:
|
"Chris Gross"
<cgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
Cc:
|
"'Runtime Project PMC mailing list'"
<rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
Date:
|
06/02/2010 09:00 AM
|
|
Subject:
|
Re: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal
|
Seems like it.
Jeff
On 2010-06-02, at 7:53 AM, Chris Gross wrote:
> No responses seems like no objections ;)
>
> Can we move Potomac to the proposal phase?
>
> Regards,
> -Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:52 PM
> To: Chris Gross
> Cc: 'Runtime Project PMC mailing list'; 'Mike Milinkovich'; 'Wayne
Beaton'
> Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal
>
> Thanks Chris. This is great. I just wanted to get that topic out
and
> cleared up explicitly.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> On 2010-05-24, at 9:55 AM, Chris Gross wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> For what its worth, we agree. The tooling in Potomac is very small
and
>> likely to continue to be this way for some time.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Chris Gross
>> ElementRiver
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff McAffer [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:05 PM
>> To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list
>> Cc: Mike Milinkovich; Wayne Beaton; Chris Gross
>> Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] new Potomac proposal
>>
>> Looks interesting. The one (potential) issue is the RT scope
restriction
> on
>> "significant tooling efforts". As I understand
Potomac, it would not be
>> reasonable/useful to separate the runtime from the tooling at this
stage
>> (they are closely linked as they are evolving). So the question
really
> comes
>> down to "is the Potomac tooling effort 'significant' in the
context of the
>> RT charter"? As the end goal of Potomac is the runtime
environment I tend
>> to think of the tooling as "a necessary element" but not
the focus and so
> is
>> ok at this point. Ideally Potomac would evolve and mature such
that
>> separating the tooling would/could make sense but that is likely
some time
>> off.
>>
>> Others have thoughts?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2010-05-18, at 6:40 PM, Anne Jacko wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, Wayne (RT PMC),
>>>
>>> Please review and comment on this new project proposal from
Chris.
> Thanks.
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/potomac/
>>>
>>>
>>> Anne Jacko
>>> emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
