[news.eclipse.technology.kepler] Common project model

["Pascal Rapicault" <pascal_rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments on the project model:

I concur with Thomas and Heinrich. I think the first thing that should 
happen is to scope what the kepler project model is, then look at the state 
of the art: buckminster, corona, alf, maven, etc. and from this defines what 
can be reused: parsers, data structure, ideas, etc... finally comes the 
hacking.

Kepler model graphical editor. I'm a bit worried by this item. Does it mean 
that the user will be able to edit its files in two different ways or is it 
just a portal to the real editors such that if I click on the plugin.xml 
section of the kepler editor I get forwarded to the plugin.xml editor or 
dialog. If it is a portal, then I'm fine. If not, then it will be confusing 
and kepler editor will have to react to changes. Of course one could hope 
that editor owners would change their editor to integrate with Kepler, but I 
think this is a dream... Kepler is just starting and has proven nothing, Why 
would people spend time on integrating???
Note that of course for data that is not hold anywhere, then Kepler should 
provide edition capability.

I personaly think that the value add in the unified model lie in the ability 
to understand the relationship / dependency between each constituents of the 
overall project, and that therefore the focus should be on helping users 
with consistency issues.

Yes buckminster is a good start, but the internal model is not the overall 
solution.