[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[stp-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal
|
Done. Also, forum creation request was done.
I believe we are now waiting for Mike's +1 on the updated draft
proposal.
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/
Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
+1
Anne, can you change the first sentence to indicate that Mangrove
will be created under the SOA TLP (now that it actually exists)?
Thanks,
Wayne
Anne Jacko wrote:
Wayne (cc PMC, Mike, Adrian),
I've uploaded the new Mangrove proposal. Please take a look --
thanks.
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/
Anne Jacko
emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 7, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Adrian Mos wrote:
Hi Wayne,
with some delay (holidays...), here's the updated version of the
proposal that takes into account your suggestions as agreed to in
my previous email.
<mangrove-proper-proposal2.zip>
Thanks again for your help.
Cheers,
Adrian.
On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:11 PM, Adrian Mos wrote:
Hi Wayne,
thanks a lot for the comments, see my replies inline:
I'm concerned that the scope is not explicit enough. If I'm
reading the proposal correctly, the intent is to take the
intermediate model that's currently part of STP and turn it into
an separate project in its own right; in this context, the
discussion of integrating the various "SOA editors, runtime and
deployment tools" makes sense. However, that bit about the
intermediate model itself is missing from the scope section.
you are right, it is the current Intermediate Model component (in
Eclipse sense) that I propose to turn into a sub-project of its
own (with an extended set of responsibilities). I will make it
clearer in the scope that it's the IM.
Actually... the "description" section sounds like a better
candidate for the scope. Perhaps you can just merge these two
sections.
OK I can merge them if you think it makes a clearer read.
The proposal talks about "proposed components". Are you using
"component" in the Eclipse Development Process sense? i.e. do
you intend to have different sets of commit rights for each
component? Or are these just functional areas?
Just functional areas, it's true that the word component is
highly overloaded. So it's really just "blocks" of stuff. I can
call the section Functional Areas, to make the separation very
clear.
I'll make the changes in the next couple of days or so and send
the improved version back to you.
Thanks for the help.
Cheers,
Adrian.
--
Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation
http://www.eclipse.org
I'm going to EclipseCon!
http://www.eclipsecon.org