RE: [technology-pmc] Project Proposal: Faceted Project Framework

["Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>  I do understand all of that, but is should not have prevented person
> proposing new project from soliciting interested parties for the sake of
> this proposal, especially if he is convinced that it would be useful to
> others.

This works better once a project is proposed. There is an announcement, a newsgroup, etc. It should also be noted that there is no requirement in the Eclipse Development Process that says at least two projects must be involved to create another project. If it turns out that efforts to spread this technology beyond WTP fail, then that will be discussed when the exit strategy for this project from Technology is formulated. Keep in mind that one potential exit strategy is to get the project folded back into WTP.

>   Also, I had an experience dealing with faceted framework, and found it
> not that well documented. So, having just one committer on the proposal
> would make it hard for that person to improve this aspect of the
> project. Moving it out of WTP umbrella would actually decrease workforce
> for the project, because it won't be responsibility of the WTP anymore.

I am surprised you say that regarding documentation. There is tutorial, javadoc and various content in SDK documentation. Have you tried opening bugs to highlight areas that don't have adequate coverage? I am particularly fond of patches, btw.

Moving this out of WTP will not alter the amount of resources going towards this framework. There only one committer who works on this code in WTP right now. Keep in mind that WTP will be the primary consumer of this framework for the immediate future. It's not like other folks involved with WTP or with commercial products adopting WTP will let this code rot. 

>  I also concerned with moving faceted framework out of the WTP
> namespace, given that faceted framework in WTP is actually a public API.
> Please note that 3rd party integrations would have really hard time to
> support old and new stuff (it is already painful enough to support more
> then the latest WTP version). Actually I am not that much concerned
> about faceted framework itself, but how would I have to handle WTP
> project configuration in Maven tools [1] after WTP itself would be moved
> to the new incarnation of this framework. It would be really great to
> see those aspects covered in the proposal.

This is addressed in the proposal. Please take another look. The API in WTP would be preserved by becoming a shell that wraps the framework in its new location. Existing code will continue to work as before.

>  Another issue that is not covered in the proposal is relationship
> between facets and natures. From your comments it seem like there is
> some historical issues between Platform and this framework, but it would
> be great to have some plan for moving forward, maybe at least plan to
> address this issue in e4.

I will add a little bit more clarifying text in this regard. There is an ongoing conversation on the e4 mailing list. If something comes of it, it might influence future direction for this project, but not necessarily change any of the immediate plans.