RE: [soa-iwg] ECF remote services

["Donald Smith" <donald.smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Scott,

The difference being that Virgo is a project, but the inclusions being
discussed here are for the IWG Package.

That is not a statement of disagreement to your recommendations for
inclusions -- just pointing out the difference so we can focus the
discussion.

 - Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lewis [mailto:slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: January 12, 2010 3:49 PM
To: SOA Industry Working Group
Cc: Donald Smith
Subject: Re: [soa-iwg] ECF remote services

Zsolt, et. al.

Scott Lewis wrote:
> Hi Zsolt,
>
> <stuff deleted>
>
> Let me say it again:  just, plain, wrong.

If you want further external (i.e. not from me) support for this 
perspective on the relationship between runtime and tooling, see the 
Virgo proposal:

http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/virgo

In case you don't feel like reading...the proposal explicitly states:  
"Developer tools supporting the runtime platform are out of scope for 
Virgo, see the following section on related contributions below for 
details of how these requirements will be addressed".

and

"Developer tools that provide support for Virgo are out of scope for the 
Virgo project as part of Eclipse RT. However, the Virgo team also 
propose to work with the existing WTP and PDE projects to contribute 
relevant developer tools for Virgo to those projects. These 
contributions will be based upon the existing Bundlor and dm Server 
development tools projects detailed below".

Scott