Re: [ee4j-pmc] "Implements" relationships in the project/spec graph

[Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just pushed an update.

https://www.eclipse.org/ee4j/relationships.php

I decided to comment out the requires relationships. I don't think that they are valuable here (I do think that the relationships between the specifications is valuable and useful information, but I think that we can safely skip it in this graph). By eliminating these relationships, I think that I can pretty easily coerce the nodes into tidy columns. We're probably close enough to done now that it makes sense to start thinking a little harder about layout. I'll poke at that tonight.

I also decided to play a bit with line thicknesses to make the lines themselves indicate the nature of the relationship. It looks a little clumbsy right now, but I'll play a bit with them to see what I can sort out.

Anyway... I managed to eyeball and fix a few mistakes (including at least one missing project; "Eclipse Project for JPA" wasn't there). Any "specification" node that has fewer than two arrow heads pointing at it is missing information. Any help will be appreciated.

Wayne

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm in there now. I'll fix up everything that's been mentioned on this thread.

Wayne

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wayne Beaton wrote on 05/23/18 01:53 PM:

For projects that both provide the API for a spec and implement the spec, we could have two lines from the project to the spec.  That would make the dual nature of the project more clear.  Maybe that would be better?

IMHO, yes.

Great.  Do you want to do that or do you need a PR from me?

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation