Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[stp-pmc] RE: [Fwd: RE: [stp-dev] Subproject issues]

 
Bjorn,
 
The only duplication I know of is in the area of B2J. This move of fuctionality from TPTP to
STP that was discussed at board meeting. I have cc'ed Mike Norman so that we have all
parties involved on the thread.
 
Carl.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Freeman-Benson [mailto:bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:38 PM
To: Trieloff, Carl; danberg@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [stp-dev] Subproject issues]

Carl,
The Board approval of STP wasn't a blanket approval to duplicate work being done elsewhere. Eclipse projects are expected to cooperate to create technology, not compete with each other.

- Bjorn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [stp-dev] Subproject issues
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:39:49 -0500
From: Daniel Berg <danberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: STP Dev list <stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxx, James Moody <James_Moody@xxxxxxxxxx>, "STP Dev list" <stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, stp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



I understand this requirement but shouldn't STP define the extension points and mechanics around these extension points and other content owning projects actually contribute extensions to STP through their projects?  For example the new BPEL project should/would have extensions to STP to integrate their tooling into STP.

If this is not the case then how do we see new content types integrating into STP?  I would hope that we wouldn't define a new subproject each time there is a new implementation type.

As it stands I think these two subprojects are misplaced because it seems that they have significant overlap with other projects within Eclipse.  Would you agree?

Regards,
Dan




"Trieloff, Carl" <CTRIELOFF@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: stp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

01/24/2006 11:02 AM

Please respond to
STP Dev list

To
"STP Dev list" <stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxx, James Moody <James_Moody@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject
RE: [stp-dev] Subproject issues








Both B2J and BPMN where part of the proposal and board approval process. They are
key a key sample in STP to
                - Make sure we have the frameworks in place to have STP extensible enough to
                support other languages (C++, COBOL, BPEL... and hopefully one day PHP :-)
                - Make sure that "technical participants" that integrate with the assembly model
                and then bind to the Assembly model language binding like B2J will do with Java. This
                means that these services created with eclipse with be able to deploy onto any
                container supported by the assembly model and SCA

Technically, we core was not on original list, but we all agreed that we
want a "core" assembly for all subprojects in the f2f.

In the IRC and last two weeks call we decided to seed the website and then the dev list
can come back with edits to update the site. I will also create pages for about, development
resource, community and contributors and committers, which then can be reviewed by all and
updated. I am hoping to bring one or two of these sections up this week.

I will NOT create any content for the subprojects, that needs to be extensively discussed on the
IRC and dev list.

Hope than helps.
Carl.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Daume [mailto:Stefan.Daume@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:13 AM
To: STP Dev list
Cc: bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxx; James Moody
Subject: Re: [stp-dev] Subproject issues


The STP project including the subprojects was presented as is to the
Eclipse board. The STP project was accepted on the basis of this
structure acknowledging that those were in scope. I am sure that Carl
can add to this if necessary.

    Stefan



Daniel Berg wrote:

>
> I was looking at the defined sub projects and two of them stood out:
>  STP BPEL 2 Java (B2J) and STP BPMN (BPMN).  The problem I have with
> these subprojects is that they start overlapping with implementation
> content contributions from other projects within Eclipse.  For
> example, these seem to be obvious overlaps with the BPEL project
> within Eclipse.  
>
> Why are we defining content subprojects which clearly belongs in other
> projects within Eclipse?
>
> STP is a platform for component implementation assembly and
> deployment.  It is not in the business of editing or creating the
> specific component implementations.  This is best left to the
> implementation providers from other projects within Eclipse.
>
> I suggest that these subprojects be removed from STP and their
> contributions added to the proper Eclipse subprojects.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>stp-dev mailing list
>stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-dev
>  
>

_______________________________________________
stp-dev mailing list
stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-dev
_______________________________________________
stp-dev mailing list
stp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stp-dev


Back to the top