|Re: [technology-pmc] Project Proposal: Faceted Project Framework|
Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
When I first saw Konstantin's proposal, I was surprised, and interpreted it as moving a component from WTP to Technology ... which didn't make any sense to me and seemed to have missed a step in the process of moving a component from one project to another (namely, talking to the "from"project :). Konstantin in turn was surprised by my surprise since he has long maintained this framework had broader applicability than just the WTP project and has several times tried to broaden that adoption, to improve Eclipse's handling of project dependencies.
Several notes and phone calls later, I have a clearer understanding of what's trying to be accomplished by this proposal, and have gained some reassurance there would be no impact to WTP or adopters (except perhaps for invisibly swapping out the implementation under the covers, to be decided at some future time). I appreciate Konstantin clarifying that part of the proposal.
As I understand it, the goal is to get more interest and adoption of the faceted project framework in order to have more consistency and improved handling of sophisticated and complex "project natures" (so to speak).And, I think the goal of promoting an improved and consistent way of handling complex dependencies is a very good goal, and is worthy of Konstantin's (and others) efforts.
While I'm not sure that moving the functionality from one project to another is the way to broaden that adoption and community participation, others are convinced there are blocks that prevent an adopter from using a small piece of non-web-tools functionality from a web-tools project. Since I (or anyone, as far as I know) really understand why there are such blocks, I would not want to stand in the way of attempts to make progress in this area.
At the same time, we in WTP do plan to ease adoption directly from WTP, by having a separate download for this framework and others and we'll continue supporting this parallel effort (you can follow bug 200247 if interested in that approach).