[news.eclipse.technology.ecp] Re: More on the project name, and relation

[Igor Shabalov <ishabalov@xxxxxxxxxx>]

First of all I'd like to say "Welcome, Wolfgang, to our community!"

Yes, we where talking with Wolfgang even before we submit our proposal 
to Eclipse, and I appreciate Wolfgang's commitment to drive new and 
exciting ideas to Java community.

I'd like to admit that I agree with Ed - I like the word RSP and, 
honestly, we where talking about that naming internally here, in Exadel, 
a few months ago, Wolfgang just was lucky enough to "hijack" the word in 
his article on theserverside (Wolfgang, please, no offense!). The word 
"RSP" have both - pros and contras, in my understanding.

In reality we are talking about "just" platform. We really need to span 
between both - client and server sides and we need really simple way to 
span applications between different levels. But why just both? What 
about data tier? In ECP (let me use that word for the lack of better one 
so far) we where talking about ability to put some database artifacts 
into bundles, and why we cannot puts anything there, like stored 
procedures, DDL, sample or static data etc? So, some components belong 
to client, so to the server, some to the database tier.

What about grid infrastructure? Some of our components may be deployed 
to some nodes on grid to perform specific node-dependent functions.

What about application life cycle? Our components may have full 
design-time artifact inside (code, build scripts, documentation, tests 
etc.).

In all this cases we need (definition of) components, dependencies, 
assembly, distribution etc, what essentially we all are talking about 
here. So, we have to address all tiers!

I support Wendell's idea to organize several groups specialized on some 
aspects of our ambitious plans, but first we need to pass project review 
in Eclipse and start actual work rather sooner, than later.

Back to the subject: I like RSP for the simplicity, but nether RSP, nor 
ECP are definitive enough, I think. I do not care as much about name, as 
about specific functionality that we are going to implement. And I think 
we will continue our dialog with Wolfgang's group.

Our next step will be Project Review in a few weeks, I'm working on 
presentation right now, as soon as I will have it I will post it here 
and, if somebody would like to listen, I will held a conference call.

Best,
Igor.


Wendell Beckwith wrote:
> Guys, there is only so many hours in a day, approximately 37.4 based on 
> my last project schedule, to actually work on an open source project.  
> Wolfgang, if your work could be considered a sub-project for a specific 
> domain of this project then it would be better for all involved IMHO.  
> I'm not asking you to abandon your idea for a project, but instead to 
> ask can I carve out my niche in a existing (or soon to exist) project.  
> If you look at the people who have shown interest there might be 10+ 
> committers for this project, of which 2 might be yourself and Scott 
> Lewis working on an RSP-UI component.  No one has talked about 
> organization, but there may be a core team and then a lot of domain 
> specific components, similar in nature to the Apache Commons project and 
> the component libraries included within it.
>
> Wendell
>
>
> Wolfgang Gehner wrote:
>
> > The RSP-UI proposal which Ed refers to is not published/submitted yet, 
> > so it's kinda hard to discuss in public. Hope to get it out there 
> > soon, though.
> >
> > Only so much, there is good communication with ECP (including exchange 
> > of pre-proposal drafts), agreement to collaborate, and having 
> > integration points between ECP and RSP-UI.
> > On ECF/OSGi console, Scott Lewis has confirmed interest to support and 
> > possibly contribute to RSP-UI, most likely through ECF usage/feedback.
> >
> > Wolfgang Gehner
> >
> > Ed Burnette wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The RSP idea doesn't have to be tied to JEE. In fact I think 
> > > that's a bad idea and said so in my comments on the RSP proposal.
> > > 2. It shouldn't use legacy of Eclipse 2 unless there's some good 
> > > reason to.
> > > 3. RSP is not a trademark. The '(tm)' thing was just a joke on 
> > > Wolfgang's part (I just asked him).
> > > 4. Rich Client Platform is well known. Changing 'client' to 'server' 
> > > just capitalizes on name recognition to quickly explain it, kind of 
> > > like the term 'cable modem'.
> >
> >
> > > You guys (you and Wolfgang and maybe Jeff McAffer) should really talk.
> >
> >
> > > I don't have any skin in this but I think Eclipse needs something 
> > > really low level, simple, and flexible to serve as a legacy-free 
> > > framework for server applications of the future. Namely, equinox on 
> > > the server, with dynamic bundles and services and all that implies. 
> > > See also my 'grand challenges' talk at EclipseCon, and the neat 
> > > ECF/OSGi console that Scott Lewis did.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Alex Antonau wrote:
> > >
> > > > We familiar with the Rich Server Platform but there are essential 
> > > > differences:
> > > > 1. RSP is just a plug-in system for JEE container
> > > > 2. RSP uses legacy of Eclipse 2 ? Eclipse extension points
> > > > 3. RSP name is a trademark
> > >
> > >  > 4. "Rich" is not commonly used term in
> > >
> > > > enterprise application development and could arise questions
> > > >
> > > > Alex Antonau