| [smila-dev] Why we need to communicate our CQs better to the Community |
|
Hi All I have had today a discussion with Jochen
Krause. There he addressed the topic Berkeley DB CQ request. The point was… its extreme complex. We
are a server project and therefore need server libraries and we all know we
take such topics seriously. When moving it to IP process and when not. In the later discussion the main point
comes out. We have a lack in communicating these
needs. Thanks to Jochen and Jeff for support and
feedback. The Berkeley DB is a really interesting
sample. We have performance requirements due to the amount of information that
is usually processed by such an architecture. We have to gather fast a lot of
information e.g. if such an project is used in a SOA use case. And we did not
communicated that it took about two month to choose a XML database that match
our needs. The suggestion was to create a mapping
between the architecture overview and some vital or larger CQs to create a
better picture. That way essential components get visible and we are showing
why we need support. The core is: we are spending money from the
community. And the community should know why it’s vital. That way the
process is getting easier for us. @Tom: could you please ask Sonja to add
additional information about such topics to the architecture overview or an
additional picture. We should also move our CQ table to the Eclipse wiki. When we have
added this information we should send a notice to rt-pmc (at) eclipse.org Regards, Georg |