Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
New Page 1
Good point.
Attached is a revised copy
that hopefully addresses this and other comments.
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).
|