|
Sorry Konstantin, I haven't introduced myself.
I'm the project lead for Eclipse IAM. Currently we are users of the framework, but just to configure WTP facets based on external metadata (maven project descriptors).
However, we are in this case of allowing the user to enable/disable support for maven in any valid project, so we're actually contributing to clutter the project context menu :-).
I could see us using the faceted project framework after it is packaged separately (we'd like to keep eclipse requirements low... 3.3 if possible, but this is not set on stone). You could add Eclipse IAM as an interested consumer for the framework.
Once the project is proposed and provisioned, we can talk about paths to easy adoption. One thing that comes to my mind is to run a quick survey of what plug-ins are contributing entries to enable/disable natures to the project context menu. All those would be "prospective adopters" of the framework and can be contacted to gather on the newsgroup about their needs.
I agree that while the project is "inside" the wtp, adoption is perceived as harder (actually, I've been in that position), but this proposal should be able to change that perception. El 14/10/2008, a las 23:57, Konstantin Komissarchik escribió: Abel, Welcome to the discussion. Are you involved with any projects that might be interested in being part of this (either as a contributor or as a consumer)? I am in complete agreement that getting broader adoption requires reaching out to projects and users. I’ve been doing that for a while now, but it is challenging to talk to other projects about adoption when the framework is inside WTP. No matter how many times you say that the framework is generic and is in no way tied to WTP, people just don’t seem to hear that. Perception is very important. That’s the reason that I moved forward with proposing an independent project. I believe that it is a necessary step in order to achieve broader adoption. It is worth for everyone to keep in mind that this project is in what’s called the pre-proposal stage according to the Eclipse Development Process (http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#6_2_Project_Lifecycle). The next step (after the project is declared, but before creation review) is where the refining of the project proposal and building broader interest takes place. The project newsgroup gets created after project declaration (end of the pre-proposal stage) and helps in getting interested parties organized in refining the proposal and working on the project plan. I hate to be hijacking the technology-pmc mailing list for this purpose… - Konstantin <image001.gif>
Konstantin Komissarchik | Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 425 201 1795 | Mobile: +1 206 898 0611
Oracle Eclipse Tooling
411 108th Ave NE, Suite 2100 | Bellevue, WA 98004 Sorry for jumping a bit late on the conversation. I've been following the movements to make the faceted framework independent from WTP. As I understand the project, it provides a common solution for projects that allow the user to enable/disable some functionality on a project. Typically, these projects would resort to adding/removing natures through the contextual menu for the project, which clutters the UI. In this situation, the success (broad adoption) would be a matter of reaching out to projects and users. Many projects adopting it means that many users are comfortable with the "new" UI and the concept of facets, which in turns means that many more projects will be urged by their users to adopt the framework. Because of this, I agree with Eugine that getting some other projects involved (or just interested) in the proposal would be a good idea. Another thing to consider is compatibility with older releases of eclipse. Many projects (specially established ones with large communities) are committed to provide their work on something other than the bleeding edge eclipse release... if they are prevented from using the faceted framework because of this, adoption could slow down. Of course, making the faceted project an integral part of e4 would be the best option in the future. But I feel that it will depend on how well it does on the 3.x line. El 14/10/2008, a las 21:29, Konstantin Komissarchik escribió:
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
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. _______________________________________________ technology-pmc mailing list
|
