Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project
| Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project [message #3990] |
Wed, 18 June 2003 20:12  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mail.phase.ws
Todd, thanks for your response.
I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
"The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they become
available, either in external open source projects or within the WTP"
I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed products
FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse. I have
actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows. I am anxiously awaiting the
Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
"We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. "
Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement of
common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)? If your low-level tooling
exists already and the community comes up with a similar low-level tooling
approach... why not contribute MyEclipse's low-level tooling as a base from
which to build? Isn't that what IBM did with Eclipse? Would MyEclipse
consider that option?
Also, I have no problem with corporate involvment in o/s projects and I knew
you were going to say something about the IBM and Eclipse :-)). I was
miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP. Don't be to harsh on
me... I cry easily :-))
From: "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com>
Subject: Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM
Brandon,
Good questions!
> As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)?
Absolutely. We will always build or assimilate the best capabilities
available as quickly as possible. Currently, MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench
is about 75% custom content and 25% integrated open source. The mix will
change over time and Web Tools will be another open source venue into which
we will push and out of which we will pull, as needed.
> Also, how do you plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities
> that arise in functionality between your product and the webtools project?
On a case by case basis. We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. There can
be only one "platform" and we will work toward ensuring that Web Tools has a
very good one, as I stated in my original post.
> If a contributor supplies a better widget will yours take priority
> because it is more compatible with the MyEclipse product?
In an apples to apples comparison, no; we would replace our "widget" with
the best one and then build on top of it, quickly. That is the strength of
our best of breed "build or integrate" model. We plan on moving products in
and out of MyEclipse all the time so that we always have the most complete
and capable toolset available.
> I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
With respect to our involvement, we won't be developing the same
functionality in two places. The areas we'll be working on within Web
Tools, we'll only be working on within Web Tools. The only convergence will
come when the new server tooling is nearing completion and we have to
migrate MyEclipse to ride on top of it. But that's really just another
integration issue for us internally.
> Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to add
> to the webtools project.
Actually, I don't believe I used the term "cutting edge" and I didn't talk
about contributing any components to the project. What I said was that we
will try to get the ball rolling by taking a leadership position in the
areas where we have both interest and deep experience. We won't be
contributing any existing code, however, simply because we believe that with
the participation of the Eclipse community we can collectively create a much
better infrastructure than any one company, including mine, has had the time
or talent to build.
> I always get nervous about opensource projects with
> corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
If you're worried about corporate ties in open source then you should
immediately run away from Eclipse.org. ;-) Seriously thoug, there is no
open source project with wider or deeper corporate involvement. Please take
a good look at the full list of "corporate ties" that run this show we all
have grown to love (http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html). While you'll
see that we're definately on the list, so are about 40 other companies. You
must remember that Eclipse.org is a project that is staffed and funded by
those 40+ companies and all of them use the technology built here, in some
way, toward their commercial interests. Only if Eclipse is commercially
successful will these companies continue to fund and staff the open source
projects; the relationship is synergistic. Remember, there are other, much
more expensive, Eclipse-based commercial IDEs that have been built and sold
by IBM, Rational, Borland, TogetherSoft, SAP, HP, QNX, and a host of others.
We're basically doing the same thing, but are willing to do our part for the
community at large by keeping our product costs low and by contributing
something back to the open source projects.
Regards,
Todd
"Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
news:bcqq3b$lj9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> A few more questions...
>
> As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)? Also, how do
you
> plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities that arise in functionality
> between your product and the webtools project? If a contributor supplies a
> better widget will yours take priority because it is more compatible with
> the MyEclipse product? I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to add
> to the webtools project. I always get nervous about opensource projects
with
> corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
>
> Thanks
> Brandon
>
> "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> news:bcqpf2$l87$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > So, basically that means that this will essentially be MyEclipse with
> > yestereday's functionality?
> >
> > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcqkl5$i2t$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Deep within the "Eclipse BoF summary (JavaOne) / questions" thread on
> this
> > > newsgroup, a poster named Kevin asked the following question regarding
> the
> > > Web Tools Project (WTP):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Does any of this have to do with the whole
> > >
> > > >myeclipseide.net thing? They seem
> > > >to be doing the same thing, putting together
> > >
> > > >various tools plugins like this, such as the
> > >
> > > >EASIE j2ee plugin, jsp/web page tools, etc.
> > >
> > > >For $29 a year, that isn't all that bad, but I am
> > >
> > > >curious if the web tools is similar, part of it, etc?"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Since I've answered similar questions a few times, I've decided it's
now
> a
> > > FAQ (at least for me) so I'm posting a general response here so that
it
> > will
> > > be part of the public record and easily available to anyone that is
> > > interested in the topic.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To set the context of my reply, my name is Todd Williams and I'm the
VP
> of
> > > Technology at Genuitec, LLC. Genuitec is the primary driving force
> behind
> > > the MyEclipse initiative (http://www.myeclipseide.com) and the author
of
> > the
> > > EASIE plugins, both mentioned in Kevin's question. In addition,
> Genuitec
> > is
> > > also a member of the Eclipse consortium and I'm our representative on
> the
> > > Eclipse Board of Stewards. Therefore, the comments here can be
> considered
> > > to be the official position on the relationship between MyEclipse,
> > Genuitec,
> > > and the WTP.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > First, Genuitec will be participating in the WTP, primarily in the
areas
> > of
> > > the J2EE project model, Universal Server Tooling (UST), and server
> > > deployment. UST is actually a capability we've been lobbying for
> > inclusion
> > > into Eclipse for about a year now. We are excited that we can now
help
> > > address these areas through the WTP. I've already had several
in-depth
> > > discussions with our PMC lead, John Wiegand, to discuss the project's
> > needs.
> > > In an effort to bootstrap the interest in these core capabilities,
> > Genuitec
> > > will produce a high-level document that outlines our recommended
> approach
> > in
> > > these areas; based on the experience we gained developing the
MyEclipse
> > > Enterprise Workbench and integrating all brands of application servers
> > into
> > > Eclipse.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So what's MyEclipse and how is it related to the WTP?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MyEclipse was conceived in October 2002 because we recognized that the
> > > market needed an inexpensive, simple, supported way to use Eclipse for
> > J2EE
> > > development. Until MyEclipse came along, many developers were
> attempting
> > to
> > > cobble together a workable J2EE IDE from Eclipse and the literally
> > hundreds
> > > of individual plugins that were available. Productivity losses while
> > using
> > > Eclipse were already a concern for development managers as their
> > developers'
> > > constantly evaluated the latest plugins, worked around reliability
> issues,
> > > and struggled to manage functional overlap and conflicts between
> plugins.
> > > It wasn't unusual for developers to maintain several instances of
> Eclipse
> > to
> > > help them deal with these challenges. In a nutshell, MyEclipse solves
> > this
> > > problem by assimilating the unique capabilities contributed by our
> member
> > > companies, and the best of the open source efforts, to create a
cohesive
> > > J2EE IDE that double-click installs as a product extension to the
latest
> > > Eclipse release build.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In summary, we're expecting a synergistic relationship between the
WTP,
> > > Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP in an
> effort
> > > to ensure that it becomes another high quality source of web tooling
> > > infrastructure. The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
> > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
become
> > > available, either in external open source projects or within the WTP,
> well
> > > before any of these features are finally rolled into Eclipse itself.
As
> a
> > > result of this relationship, the WTP will benefit from Genuitec's
> > experience
> > > in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipse's customers will continue to
> > > receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and inexpensive J2EE
> > > development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Todd Williams
> > >
> > > Genuitec, LLC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project [message #3999 is a reply to message #3990] |
Wed, 18 June 2003 20:58  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Brandon,
> I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed products
> FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse
Precisely, we'll incorporate as a first option and build as a second option.
>I have actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows.
> I am anxiously awaiting the Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
We're moving as fast as we can and the overtime is mounting horrifically.
:-) EA2, available 6/23, will have support for Tomcat 4 & 5. It will also
have full JSR-045 support so that on Tomcat 5 (or Weblogic 7.0 / 8.1) you'll
have full source-level JSP debugging. It's very cool. Once JBoss comes
integrated with Tomcat 5 or Jetty starts to use the latest Jasper compiler
(I hounded the Jetty team a little at JavaOne), you'll inherit full source
level JSP debugging on JBoss also. However, for more conversation on
MyEclipse I'll encourage you, and anyone else, to come hang out on our
forums rather than take up bandwidth in this fine newsgroup.
> Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement of
> common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)?
I'm referring to extension points into which anyone can write plugins to
enable any external server to manipulated by starting / stopping /
restarting / deploying / undeploying, etc. With a uniform set of tooling at
this level, anyone can then plug their favorite servers into Eclipse as we
did with the large set of adaptors in MyEclipse.
> If your low-level tooling exists already and the community comes up
> with a similar low-level tooling approach... why not contribute
MyEclipse's
> low-level tooling as a base from which to build?
> Would MyEclipse consider that option?
Unfortunately, there is a huge difference in the concerns you have to
address when building tooling for internal use versus external use. For
externally visible tooling, you have all the "what's API vs not API" issues
along with large extensibility requirements. Our internal tooling is built
in a very simple, straightforward manner to allow us to rapidly deliver
product and evolve it as needed. We can afford to evolve it because we own
all the code and can refactor it as needed. This won't be the case for
Eclipse's tooling; it will need to be much more carefully designed since you
basically only get to do it once. As soon as something is labeled API, you
basically have to support it "as is" no matter what. What we plan on doing
is taking all of our lessons learned and contributing a design that we hope
can serve as the starting point (at least for discussions) for the truly
extensible and robust server tooling that Eclipse needs. Tooling for
external consumption is an order of magnitude more difficult to specify and
build than internal, at least in my experience. Luckily, we have a PMC lead
that's been building tooling longer than some of the readers of this
newsgroup have been alive. ;-) Sorry John, but at least the group you're in
includes me as well. :-)
> I was miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP.
> Don't be to harsh on me... I cry easily :-))
I try not to be too harsh on anyone that asks interesting questions. Sorry
if it came across that way. :-)
Regards,
Todd
"Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
news:bcqur2$oe3$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Todd, thanks for your response.
>
> I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
>
> "The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
> enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they become
> available, either in external open source projects or within the WTP"
>
> I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed products
> FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse. I have
> actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows. I am anxiously awaiting the
> Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
>
> "We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. "
>
> Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement of
> common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)? If your low-level
tooling
> exists already and the community comes up with a similar low-level tooling
> approach... why not contribute MyEclipse's low-level tooling as a base
from
> which to build? Isn't that what IBM did with Eclipse? Would MyEclipse
> consider that option?
>
> Also, I have no problem with corporate involvment in o/s projects and I
knew
> you were going to say something about the IBM and Eclipse :-)). I was
> miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP. Don't be to harsh on
> me... I cry easily :-))
>
>
>
>
> From: "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com>
> Subject: Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project
> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM
>
> Brandon,
>
> Good questions!
>
> > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)?
>
> Absolutely. We will always build or assimilate the best capabilities
> available as quickly as possible. Currently, MyEclipse Enterprise
Workbench
> is about 75% custom content and 25% integrated open source. The mix will
> change over time and Web Tools will be another open source venue into
which
> we will push and out of which we will pull, as needed.
>
> > Also, how do you plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities
> > that arise in functionality between your product and the webtools
project?
>
> On a case by case basis. We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. There
can
> be only one "platform" and we will work toward ensuring that Web Tools has
a
> very good one, as I stated in my original post.
>
> > If a contributor supplies a better widget will yours take priority
> > because it is more compatible with the MyEclipse product?
>
> In an apples to apples comparison, no; we would replace our "widget" with
> the best one and then build on top of it, quickly. That is the strength
of
> our best of breed "build or integrate" model. We plan on moving products
in
> and out of MyEclipse all the time so that we always have the most complete
> and capable toolset available.
>
> > I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
>
> With respect to our involvement, we won't be developing the same
> functionality in two places. The areas we'll be working on within Web
> Tools, we'll only be working on within Web Tools. The only convergence
will
> come when the new server tooling is nearing completion and we have to
> migrate MyEclipse to ride on top of it. But that's really just another
> integration issue for us internally.
>
> > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to
add
> > to the webtools project.
>
> Actually, I don't believe I used the term "cutting edge" and I didn't talk
> about contributing any components to the project. What I said was that we
> will try to get the ball rolling by taking a leadership position in the
> areas where we have both interest and deep experience. We won't be
> contributing any existing code, however, simply because we believe that
with
> the participation of the Eclipse community we can collectively create a
much
> better infrastructure than any one company, including mine, has had the
time
> or talent to build.
>
> > I always get nervous about opensource projects with
> > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
>
> If you're worried about corporate ties in open source then you should
> immediately run away from Eclipse.org. ;-) Seriously thoug, there is no
> open source project with wider or deeper corporate involvement. Please
take
> a good look at the full list of "corporate ties" that run this show we all
> have grown to love (http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html). While you'll
> see that we're definately on the list, so are about 40 other companies.
You
> must remember that Eclipse.org is a project that is staffed and funded by
> those 40+ companies and all of them use the technology built here, in some
> way, toward their commercial interests. Only if Eclipse is commercially
> successful will these companies continue to fund and staff the open source
> projects; the relationship is synergistic. Remember, there are other,
much
> more expensive, Eclipse-based commercial IDEs that have been built and
sold
> by IBM, Rational, Borland, TogetherSoft, SAP, HP, QNX, and a host of
others.
> We're basically doing the same thing, but are willing to do our part for
the
> community at large by keeping our product costs low and by contributing
> something back to the open source projects.
>
> Regards,
> Todd
>
>
>
> "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> news:bcqq3b$lj9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > A few more questions...
> >
> > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)? Also, how do
> you
> > plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities that arise in
functionality
> > between your product and the webtools project? If a contributor supplies
a
> > better widget will yours take priority because it is more compatible
with
> > the MyEclipse product? I just see a real danger here when two projects
try
> > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to
add
> > to the webtools project. I always get nervous about opensource projects
> with
> > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Brandon
> >
> > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > news:bcqpf2$l87$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > So, basically that means that this will essentially be MyEclipse with
> > > yestereday's functionality?
> > >
> > > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bcqkl5$i2t$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > Deep within the "Eclipse BoF summary (JavaOne) / questions" thread
on
> > this
> > > > newsgroup, a poster named Kevin asked the following question
regarding
> > the
> > > > Web Tools Project (WTP):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Does any of this have to do with the whole
> > > >
> > > > >myeclipseide.net thing? They seem
> > > > >to be doing the same thing, putting together
> > > >
> > > > >various tools plugins like this, such as the
> > > >
> > > > >EASIE j2ee plugin, jsp/web page tools, etc.
> > > >
> > > > >For $29 a year, that isn't all that bad, but I am
> > > >
> > > > >curious if the web tools is similar, part of it, etc?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since I've answered similar questions a few times, I've decided it's
> now
> > a
> > > > FAQ (at least for me) so I'm posting a general response here so that
> it
> > > will
> > > > be part of the public record and easily available to anyone that is
> > > > interested in the topic.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To set the context of my reply, my name is Todd Williams and I'm the
> VP
> > of
> > > > Technology at Genuitec, LLC. Genuitec is the primary driving force
> > behind
> > > > the MyEclipse initiative (http://www.myeclipseide.com) and the
author
> of
> > > the
> > > > EASIE plugins, both mentioned in Kevin's question. In addition,
> > Genuitec
> > > is
> > > > also a member of the Eclipse consortium and I'm our representative
on
> > the
> > > > Eclipse Board of Stewards. Therefore, the comments here can be
> > considered
> > > > to be the official position on the relationship between MyEclipse,
> > > Genuitec,
> > > > and the WTP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First, Genuitec will be participating in the WTP, primarily in the
> areas
> > > of
> > > > the J2EE project model, Universal Server Tooling (UST), and server
> > > > deployment. UST is actually a capability we've been lobbying for
> > > inclusion
> > > > into Eclipse for about a year now. We are excited that we can now
> help
> > > > address these areas through the WTP. I've already had several
> in-depth
> > > > discussions with our PMC lead, John Wiegand, to discuss the
project's
> > > needs.
> > > > In an effort to bootstrap the interest in these core capabilities,
> > > Genuitec
> > > > will produce a high-level document that outlines our recommended
> > approach
> > > in
> > > > these areas; based on the experience we gained developing the
> MyEclipse
> > > > Enterprise Workbench and integrating all brands of application
servers
> > > into
> > > > Eclipse.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So what's MyEclipse and how is it related to the WTP?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MyEclipse was conceived in October 2002 because we recognized that
the
> > > > market needed an inexpensive, simple, supported way to use Eclipse
for
> > > J2EE
> > > > development. Until MyEclipse came along, many developers were
> > attempting
> > > to
> > > > cobble together a workable J2EE IDE from Eclipse and the literally
> > > hundreds
> > > > of individual plugins that were available. Productivity losses
while
> > > using
> > > > Eclipse were already a concern for development managers as their
> > > developers'
> > > > constantly evaluated the latest plugins, worked around reliability
> > issues,
> > > > and struggled to manage functional overlap and conflicts between
> > plugins.
> > > > It wasn't unusual for developers to maintain several instances of
> > Eclipse
> > > to
> > > > help them deal with these challenges. In a nutshell, MyEclipse
solves
> > > this
> > > > problem by assimilating the unique capabilities contributed by our
> > member
> > > > companies, and the best of the open source efforts, to create a
> cohesive
> > > > J2EE IDE that double-click installs as a product extension to the
> latest
> > > > Eclipse release build.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In summary, we're expecting a synergistic relationship between the
> WTP,
> > > > Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP in an
> > effort
> > > > to ensure that it becomes another high quality source of web tooling
> > > > infrastructure. The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate,
extend,
> > > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
> become
> > > > available, either in external open source projects or within the
WTP,
> > well
> > > > before any of these features are finally rolled into Eclipse itself.
> As
> > a
> > > > result of this relationship, the WTP will benefit from Genuitec's
> > > experience
> > > > in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipse's customers will continue
to
> > > > receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and inexpensive J2EE
> > > > development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Todd Williams
> > > >
> > > > Genuitec, LLC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project [message #4005 is a reply to message #3999] |
Wed, 18 June 2003 21:51 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mail.phase.ws
This all sounds really good. I'm curious if/when the real groundwork is
going to be laid. Who is going to assemble the first design proposals? This
forum seems to have a diverse range of interests already, but, it may be
difficult to form a concensus with so many differing approaches. Several
groups have invested some time into plugin development. I have a feeling
that there is potential for some methodological bias. I'll be curious to see
how this develops. I'm not sure how I can be of assistance, but, I am
available.
BTW. I was just kidding about crying easy and you weren't harsh at all :-D
Brandon Goodin
"Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
news:bcr21h$qdc$1@rogue.oti.com...
> Brandon,
>
> > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
products
> > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse
>
> Precisely, we'll incorporate as a first option and build as a second
option.
>
> >I have actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows.
> > I am anxiously awaiting the Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
>
> We're moving as fast as we can and the overtime is mounting horrifically.
> :-) EA2, available 6/23, will have support for Tomcat 4 & 5. It will
also
> have full JSR-045 support so that on Tomcat 5 (or Weblogic 7.0 / 8.1)
you'll
> have full source-level JSP debugging. It's very cool. Once JBoss comes
> integrated with Tomcat 5 or Jetty starts to use the latest Jasper compiler
> (I hounded the Jetty team a little at JavaOne), you'll inherit full source
> level JSP debugging on JBoss also. However, for more conversation on
> MyEclipse I'll encourage you, and anyone else, to come hang out on our
> forums rather than take up bandwidth in this fine newsgroup.
>
> > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement of
> > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)?
>
> I'm referring to extension points into which anyone can write plugins to
> enable any external server to manipulated by starting / stopping /
> restarting / deploying / undeploying, etc. With a uniform set of tooling
at
> this level, anyone can then plug their favorite servers into Eclipse as we
> did with the large set of adaptors in MyEclipse.
>
> > If your low-level tooling exists already and the community comes up
> > with a similar low-level tooling approach... why not contribute
> MyEclipse's
> > low-level tooling as a base from which to build?
> > Would MyEclipse consider that option?
>
> Unfortunately, there is a huge difference in the concerns you have to
> address when building tooling for internal use versus external use. For
> externally visible tooling, you have all the "what's API vs not API"
issues
> along with large extensibility requirements. Our internal tooling is
built
> in a very simple, straightforward manner to allow us to rapidly deliver
> product and evolve it as needed. We can afford to evolve it because we
own
> all the code and can refactor it as needed. This won't be the case for
> Eclipse's tooling; it will need to be much more carefully designed since
you
> basically only get to do it once. As soon as something is labeled API,
you
> basically have to support it "as is" no matter what. What we plan on
doing
> is taking all of our lessons learned and contributing a design that we
hope
> can serve as the starting point (at least for discussions) for the truly
> extensible and robust server tooling that Eclipse needs. Tooling for
> external consumption is an order of magnitude more difficult to specify
and
> build than internal, at least in my experience. Luckily, we have a PMC
lead
> that's been building tooling longer than some of the readers of this
> newsgroup have been alive. ;-) Sorry John, but at least the group you're
in
> includes me as well. :-)
>
> > I was miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP.
> > Don't be to harsh on me... I cry easily :-))
>
> I try not to be too harsh on anyone that asks interesting questions. Sorry
> if it came across that way. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Todd
>
>
> "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> news:bcqur2$oe3$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Todd, thanks for your response.
> >
> > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> >
> > "The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
> > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they become
> > available, either in external open source projects or within the WTP"
> >
> > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
products
> > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse. I have
> > actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows. I am anxiously awaiting
the
> > Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
> >
> > "We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. "
> >
> > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement of
> > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)? If your low-level
> tooling
> > exists already and the community comes up with a similar low-level
tooling
> > approach... why not contribute MyEclipse's low-level tooling as a base
> from
> > which to build? Isn't that what IBM did with Eclipse? Would MyEclipse
> > consider that option?
> >
> > Also, I have no problem with corporate involvment in o/s projects and I
> knew
> > you were going to say something about the IBM and Eclipse :-)). I was
> > miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP. Don't be to harsh on
> > me... I cry easily :-))
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com>
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project
> > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM
> >
> > Brandon,
> >
> > Good questions!
> >
> > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)?
> >
> > Absolutely. We will always build or assimilate the best capabilities
> > available as quickly as possible. Currently, MyEclipse Enterprise
> Workbench
> > is about 75% custom content and 25% integrated open source. The mix
will
> > change over time and Web Tools will be another open source venue into
> which
> > we will push and out of which we will pull, as needed.
> >
> > > Also, how do you plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities
> > > that arise in functionality between your product and the webtools
> project?
> >
> > On a case by case basis. We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. There
> can
> > be only one "platform" and we will work toward ensuring that Web Tools
has
> a
> > very good one, as I stated in my original post.
> >
> > > If a contributor supplies a better widget will yours take priority
> > > because it is more compatible with the MyEclipse product?
> >
> > In an apples to apples comparison, no; we would replace our "widget"
with
> > the best one and then build on top of it, quickly. That is the strength
> of
> > our best of breed "build or integrate" model. We plan on moving
products
> in
> > and out of MyEclipse all the time so that we always have the most
complete
> > and capable toolset available.
> >
> > > I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> >
> > With respect to our involvement, we won't be developing the same
> > functionality in two places. The areas we'll be working on within Web
> > Tools, we'll only be working on within Web Tools. The only convergence
> will
> > come when the new server tooling is nearing completion and we have to
> > migrate MyEclipse to ride on top of it. But that's really just another
> > integration issue for us internally.
> >
> > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to
> add
> > > to the webtools project.
> >
> > Actually, I don't believe I used the term "cutting edge" and I didn't
talk
> > about contributing any components to the project. What I said was that
we
> > will try to get the ball rolling by taking a leadership position in the
> > areas where we have both interest and deep experience. We won't be
> > contributing any existing code, however, simply because we believe that
> with
> > the participation of the Eclipse community we can collectively create a
> much
> > better infrastructure than any one company, including mine, has had the
> time
> > or talent to build.
> >
> > > I always get nervous about opensource projects with
> > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> >
> > If you're worried about corporate ties in open source then you should
> > immediately run away from Eclipse.org. ;-) Seriously thoug, there is
no
> > open source project with wider or deeper corporate involvement. Please
> take
> > a good look at the full list of "corporate ties" that run this show we
all
> > have grown to love (http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html). While
you'll
> > see that we're definately on the list, so are about 40 other companies.
> You
> > must remember that Eclipse.org is a project that is staffed and funded
by
> > those 40+ companies and all of them use the technology built here, in
some
> > way, toward their commercial interests. Only if Eclipse is commercially
> > successful will these companies continue to fund and staff the open
source
> > projects; the relationship is synergistic. Remember, there are other,
> much
> > more expensive, Eclipse-based commercial IDEs that have been built and
> sold
> > by IBM, Rational, Borland, TogetherSoft, SAP, HP, QNX, and a host of
> others.
> > We're basically doing the same thing, but are willing to do our part for
> the
> > community at large by keeping our product costs low and by contributing
> > something back to the open source projects.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >
> > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > news:bcqq3b$lj9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > A few more questions...
> > >
> > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating code
> > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)? Also, how
do
> > you
> > > plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities that arise in
> functionality
> > > between your product and the webtools project? If a contributor
supplies
> a
> > > better widget will yours take priority because it is more compatible
> with
> > > the MyEclipse product? I just see a real danger here when two projects
> try
> > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components to
> add
> > > to the webtools project. I always get nervous about opensource
projects
> > with
> > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > news:bcqpf2$l87$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > So, basically that means that this will essentially be MyEclipse
with
> > > > yestereday's functionality?
> > > >
> > > > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bcqkl5$i2t$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > Deep within the "Eclipse BoF summary (JavaOne) / questions" thread
> on
> > > this
> > > > > newsgroup, a poster named Kevin asked the following question
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > > Web Tools Project (WTP):
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >Does any of this have to do with the whole
> > > > >
> > > > > >myeclipseide.net thing? They seem
> > > > > >to be doing the same thing, putting together
> > > > >
> > > > > >various tools plugins like this, such as the
> > > > >
> > > > > >EASIE j2ee plugin, jsp/web page tools, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > >For $29 a year, that isn't all that bad, but I am
> > > > >
> > > > > >curious if the web tools is similar, part of it, etc?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I've answered similar questions a few times, I've decided
it's
> > now
> > > a
> > > > > FAQ (at least for me) so I'm posting a general response here so
that
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > be part of the public record and easily available to anyone that
is
> > > > > interested in the topic.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To set the context of my reply, my name is Todd Williams and I'm
the
> > VP
> > > of
> > > > > Technology at Genuitec, LLC. Genuitec is the primary driving
force
> > > behind
> > > > > the MyEclipse initiative (http://www.myeclipseide.com) and the
> author
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > EASIE plugins, both mentioned in Kevin's question. In addition,
> > > Genuitec
> > > > is
> > > > > also a member of the Eclipse consortium and I'm our representative
> on
> > > the
> > > > > Eclipse Board of Stewards. Therefore, the comments here can be
> > > considered
> > > > > to be the official position on the relationship between MyEclipse,
> > > > Genuitec,
> > > > > and the WTP.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First, Genuitec will be participating in the WTP, primarily in the
> > areas
> > > > of
> > > > > the J2EE project model, Universal Server Tooling (UST), and server
> > > > > deployment. UST is actually a capability we've been lobbying for
> > > > inclusion
> > > > > into Eclipse for about a year now. We are excited that we can now
> > help
> > > > > address these areas through the WTP. I've already had several
> > in-depth
> > > > > discussions with our PMC lead, John Wiegand, to discuss the
> project's
> > > > needs.
> > > > > In an effort to bootstrap the interest in these core capabilities,
> > > > Genuitec
> > > > > will produce a high-level document that outlines our recommended
> > > approach
> > > > in
> > > > > these areas; based on the experience we gained developing the
> > MyEclipse
> > > > > Enterprise Workbench and integrating all brands of application
> servers
> > > > into
> > > > > Eclipse.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's MyEclipse and how is it related to the WTP?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > MyEclipse was conceived in October 2002 because we recognized that
> the
> > > > > market needed an inexpensive, simple, supported way to use Eclipse
> for
> > > > J2EE
> > > > > development. Until MyEclipse came along, many developers were
> > > attempting
> > > > to
> > > > > cobble together a workable J2EE IDE from Eclipse and the literally
> > > > hundreds
> > > > > of individual plugins that were available. Productivity losses
> while
> > > > using
> > > > > Eclipse were already a concern for development managers as their
> > > > developers'
> > > > > constantly evaluated the latest plugins, worked around reliability
> > > issues,
> > > > > and struggled to manage functional overlap and conflicts between
> > > plugins.
> > > > > It wasn't unusual for developers to maintain several instances of
> > > Eclipse
> > > > to
> > > > > help them deal with these challenges. In a nutshell, MyEclipse
> solves
> > > > this
> > > > > problem by assimilating the unique capabilities contributed by our
> > > member
> > > > > companies, and the best of the open source efforts, to create a
> > cohesive
> > > > > J2EE IDE that double-click installs as a product extension to the
> > latest
> > > > > Eclipse release build.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In summary, we're expecting a synergistic relationship between the
> > WTP,
> > > > > Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP in
an
> > > effort
> > > > > to ensure that it becomes another high quality source of web
tooling
> > > > > infrastructure. The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate,
> extend,
> > > > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
> > become
> > > > > available, either in external open source projects or within the
> WTP,
> > > well
> > > > > before any of these features are finally rolled into Eclipse
itself.
> > As
> > > a
> > > > > result of this relationship, the WTP will benefit from Genuitec's
> > > > experience
> > > > > in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipse's customers will
continue
> to
> > > > > receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and inexpensive
J2EE
> > > > > development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd Williams
> > > > >
> > > > > Genuitec, LLC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project [message #4038 is a reply to message #4005] |
Thu, 19 June 2003 01:04 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
You two stop it. You both had me balling!
Todd, is it really only $29 a year total, no hidden costs, I can download as
much as I want as it becomes available? That seems more than fair given the
work your team (or is it other companies as well?) will be doing to make
sure the best plugins are integrated and tested in Eclipse.
"Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
news:bcr4lg$rqs$1@rogue.oti.com...
> This all sounds really good. I'm curious if/when the real groundwork is
> going to be laid. Who is going to assemble the first design proposals?
This
> forum seems to have a diverse range of interests already, but, it may be
> difficult to form a concensus with so many differing approaches. Several
> groups have invested some time into plugin development. I have a feeling
> that there is potential for some methodological bias. I'll be curious to
see
> how this develops. I'm not sure how I can be of assistance, but, I am
> available.
>
> BTW. I was just kidding about crying easy and you weren't harsh at all :-D
>
> Brandon Goodin
>
> "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> news:bcr21h$qdc$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > Brandon,
> >
> > > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> > > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
> products
> > > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse
> >
> > Precisely, we'll incorporate as a first option and build as a second
> option.
> >
> > >I have actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows.
> > > I am anxiously awaiting the Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
> >
> > We're moving as fast as we can and the overtime is mounting
horrifically.
> > :-) EA2, available 6/23, will have support for Tomcat 4 & 5. It will
> also
> > have full JSR-045 support so that on Tomcat 5 (or Weblogic 7.0 / 8.1)
> you'll
> > have full source-level JSP debugging. It's very cool. Once JBoss comes
> > integrated with Tomcat 5 or Jetty starts to use the latest Jasper
compiler
> > (I hounded the Jetty team a little at JavaOne), you'll inherit full
source
> > level JSP debugging on JBoss also. However, for more conversation on
> > MyEclipse I'll encourage you, and anyone else, to come hang out on our
> > forums rather than take up bandwidth in this fine newsgroup.
> >
> > > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement
of
> > > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)?
> >
> > I'm referring to extension points into which anyone can write plugins to
> > enable any external server to manipulated by starting / stopping /
> > restarting / deploying / undeploying, etc. With a uniform set of
tooling
> at
> > this level, anyone can then plug their favorite servers into Eclipse as
we
> > did with the large set of adaptors in MyEclipse.
> >
> > > If your low-level tooling exists already and the community comes up
> > > with a similar low-level tooling approach... why not contribute
> > MyEclipse's
> > > low-level tooling as a base from which to build?
> > > Would MyEclipse consider that option?
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is a huge difference in the concerns you have to
> > address when building tooling for internal use versus external use. For
> > externally visible tooling, you have all the "what's API vs not API"
> issues
> > along with large extensibility requirements. Our internal tooling is
> built
> > in a very simple, straightforward manner to allow us to rapidly deliver
> > product and evolve it as needed. We can afford to evolve it because we
> own
> > all the code and can refactor it as needed. This won't be the case for
> > Eclipse's tooling; it will need to be much more carefully designed since
> you
> > basically only get to do it once. As soon as something is labeled API,
> you
> > basically have to support it "as is" no matter what. What we plan on
> doing
> > is taking all of our lessons learned and contributing a design that we
> hope
> > can serve as the starting point (at least for discussions) for the truly
> > extensible and robust server tooling that Eclipse needs. Tooling for
> > external consumption is an order of magnitude more difficult to specify
> and
> > build than internal, at least in my experience. Luckily, we have a PMC
> lead
> > that's been building tooling longer than some of the readers of this
> > newsgroup have been alive. ;-) Sorry John, but at least the group
you're
> in
> > includes me as well. :-)
> >
> > > I was miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP.
> > > Don't be to harsh on me... I cry easily :-))
> >
> > I try not to be too harsh on anyone that asks interesting questions.
Sorry
> > if it came across that way. :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Todd
> >
> >
> > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > news:bcqur2$oe3$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Todd, thanks for your response.
> > >
> > > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> > >
> > > "The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
> > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
become
> > > available, either in external open source projects or within the WTP"
> > >
> > > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
> products
> > > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse. I have
> > > actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows. I am anxiously awaiting
> the
> > > Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
> > >
> > > "We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> > > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. "
> > >
> > > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement
of
> > > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)? If your low-level
> > tooling
> > > exists already and the community comes up with a similar low-level
> tooling
> > > approach... why not contribute MyEclipse's low-level tooling as a base
> > from
> > > which to build? Isn't that what IBM did with Eclipse? Would MyEclipse
> > > consider that option?
> > >
> > > Also, I have no problem with corporate involvment in o/s projects and
I
> > knew
> > > you were going to say something about the IBM and Eclipse :-)). I was
> > > miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP. Don't be to harsh
on
> > > me... I cry easily :-))
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project
> > > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM
> > >
> > > Brandon,
> > >
> > > Good questions!
> > >
> > > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating
code
> > > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)?
> > >
> > > Absolutely. We will always build or assimilate the best capabilities
> > > available as quickly as possible. Currently, MyEclipse Enterprise
> > Workbench
> > > is about 75% custom content and 25% integrated open source. The mix
> will
> > > change over time and Web Tools will be another open source venue into
> > which
> > > we will push and out of which we will pull, as needed.
> > >
> > > > Also, how do you plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities
> > > > that arise in functionality between your product and the webtools
> > project?
> > >
> > > On a case by case basis. We plan on converting our low-level tooling
to
> > > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project.
There
> > can
> > > be only one "platform" and we will work toward ensuring that Web Tools
> has
> > a
> > > very good one, as I stated in my original post.
> > >
> > > > If a contributor supplies a better widget will yours take priority
> > > > because it is more compatible with the MyEclipse product?
> > >
> > > In an apples to apples comparison, no; we would replace our "widget"
> with
> > > the best one and then build on top of it, quickly. That is the
strength
> > of
> > > our best of breed "build or integrate" model. We plan on moving
> products
> > in
> > > and out of MyEclipse all the time so that we always have the most
> complete
> > > and capable toolset available.
> > >
> > > > I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> > > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > >
> > > With respect to our involvement, we won't be developing the same
> > > functionality in two places. The areas we'll be working on within Web
> > > Tools, we'll only be working on within Web Tools. The only
convergence
> > will
> > > come when the new server tooling is nearing completion and we have to
> > > migrate MyEclipse to ride on top of it. But that's really just
another
> > > integration issue for us internally.
> > >
> > > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components
to
> > add
> > > > to the webtools project.
> > >
> > > Actually, I don't believe I used the term "cutting edge" and I didn't
> talk
> > > about contributing any components to the project. What I said was
that
> we
> > > will try to get the ball rolling by taking a leadership position in
the
> > > areas where we have both interest and deep experience. We won't be
> > > contributing any existing code, however, simply because we believe
that
> > with
> > > the participation of the Eclipse community we can collectively create
a
> > much
> > > better infrastructure than any one company, including mine, has had
the
> > time
> > > or talent to build.
> > >
> > > > I always get nervous about opensource projects with
> > > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> > >
> > > If you're worried about corporate ties in open source then you should
> > > immediately run away from Eclipse.org. ;-) Seriously thoug, there is
> no
> > > open source project with wider or deeper corporate involvement.
Please
> > take
> > > a good look at the full list of "corporate ties" that run this show we
> all
> > > have grown to love (http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html). While
> you'll
> > > see that we're definately on the list, so are about 40 other companies
..
> > You
> > > must remember that Eclipse.org is a project that is staffed and funded
> by
> > > those 40+ companies and all of them use the technology built here, in
> some
> > > way, toward their commercial interests. Only if Eclipse is
commercially
> > > successful will these companies continue to fund and staff the open
> source
> > > projects; the relationship is synergistic. Remember, there are other,
> > much
> > > more expensive, Eclipse-based commercial IDEs that have been built and
> > sold
> > > by IBM, Rational, Borland, TogetherSoft, SAP, HP, QNX, and a host of
> > others.
> > > We're basically doing the same thing, but are willing to do our part
for
> > the
> > > community at large by keeping our product costs low and by
contributing
> > > something back to the open source projects.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Todd
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > news:bcqq3b$lj9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > A few more questions...
> > > >
> > > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating
code
> > > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)? Also,
how
> do
> > > you
> > > > plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities that arise in
> > functionality
> > > > between your product and the webtools project? If a contributor
> supplies
> > a
> > > > better widget will yours take priority because it is more compatible
> > with
> > > > the MyEclipse product? I just see a real danger here when two
projects
> > try
> > > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge" components
to
> > add
> > > > to the webtools project. I always get nervous about opensource
> projects
> > > with
> > > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Brandon
> > > >
> > > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > > news:bcqpf2$l87$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > So, basically that means that this will essentially be MyEclipse
> with
> > > > > yestereday's functionality?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bcqkl5$i2t$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > > Deep within the "Eclipse BoF summary (JavaOne) / questions"
thread
> > on
> > > > this
> > > > > > newsgroup, a poster named Kevin asked the following question
> > regarding
> > > > the
> > > > > > Web Tools Project (WTP):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does any of this have to do with the whole
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >myeclipseide.net thing? They seem
> > > > > > >to be doing the same thing, putting together
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >various tools plugins like this, such as the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >EASIE j2ee plugin, jsp/web page tools, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >For $29 a year, that isn't all that bad, but I am
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >curious if the web tools is similar, part of it, etc?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since I've answered similar questions a few times, I've decided
> it's
> > > now
> > > > a
> > > > > > FAQ (at least for me) so I'm posting a general response here so
> that
> > > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be part of the public record and easily available to anyone that
> is
> > > > > > interested in the topic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To set the context of my reply, my name is Todd Williams and I'm
> the
> > > VP
> > > > of
> > > > > > Technology at Genuitec, LLC. Genuitec is the primary driving
> force
> > > > behind
> > > > > > the MyEclipse initiative (http://www.myeclipseide.com) and the
> > author
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > EASIE plugins, both mentioned in Kevin's question. In addition,
> > > > Genuitec
> > > > > is
> > > > > > also a member of the Eclipse consortium and I'm our
representative
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > Eclipse Board of Stewards. Therefore, the comments here can be
> > > > considered
> > > > > > to be the official position on the relationship between
MyEclipse,
> > > > > Genuitec,
> > > > > > and the WTP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, Genuitec will be participating in the WTP, primarily in
the
> > > areas
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the J2EE project model, Universal Server Tooling (UST), and
server
> > > > > > deployment. UST is actually a capability we've been lobbying
for
> > > > > inclusion
> > > > > > into Eclipse for about a year now. We are excited that we can
now
> > > help
> > > > > > address these areas through the WTP. I've already had several
> > > in-depth
> > > > > > discussions with our PMC lead, John Wiegand, to discuss the
> > project's
> > > > > needs.
> > > > > > In an effort to bootstrap the interest in these core
capabilities,
> > > > > Genuitec
> > > > > > will produce a high-level document that outlines our recommended
> > > > approach
> > > > > in
> > > > > > these areas; based on the experience we gained developing the
> > > MyEclipse
> > > > > > Enterprise Workbench and integrating all brands of application
> > servers
> > > > > into
> > > > > > Eclipse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what's MyEclipse and how is it related to the WTP?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MyEclipse was conceived in October 2002 because we recognized
that
> > the
> > > > > > market needed an inexpensive, simple, supported way to use
Eclipse
> > for
> > > > > J2EE
> > > > > > development. Until MyEclipse came along, many developers were
> > > > attempting
> > > > > to
> > > > > > cobble together a workable J2EE IDE from Eclipse and the
literally
> > > > > hundreds
> > > > > > of individual plugins that were available. Productivity losses
> > while
> > > > > using
> > > > > > Eclipse were already a concern for development managers as their
> > > > > developers'
> > > > > > constantly evaluated the latest plugins, worked around
reliability
> > > > issues,
> > > > > > and struggled to manage functional overlap and conflicts between
> > > > plugins.
> > > > > > It wasn't unusual for developers to maintain several instances
of
> > > > Eclipse
> > > > > to
> > > > > > help them deal with these challenges. In a nutshell, MyEclipse
> > solves
> > > > > this
> > > > > > problem by assimilating the unique capabilities contributed by
our
> > > > member
> > > > > > companies, and the best of the open source efforts, to create a
> > > cohesive
> > > > > > J2EE IDE that double-click installs as a product extension to
the
> > > latest
> > > > > > Eclipse release build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In summary, we're expecting a synergistic relationship between
the
> > > WTP,
> > > > > > Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP in
> an
> > > > effort
> > > > > > to ensure that it becomes another high quality source of web
> tooling
> > > > > > infrastructure. The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate,
> > extend,
> > > > > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
> > > become
> > > > > > available, either in external open source projects or within the
> > WTP,
> > > > well
> > > > > > before any of these features are finally rolled into Eclipse
> itself.
> > > As
> > > > a
> > > > > > result of this relationship, the WTP will benefit from
Genuitec's
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipse's customers will
> continue
> > to
> > > > > > receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and inexpensive
> J2EE
> > > > > > development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Todd Williams
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Genuitec, LLC
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools Project [message #4115 is a reply to message #4038] |
Thu, 19 June 2003 09:55 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Kevin,
> You two stop it. You both had me balling!
Well, you started it with your original question so you have only yourself
to blame / thank. :-)
> Todd, is it really only $29 a year total, no hidden costs, I can download
as
> much as I want as it becomes available?
Yes. Honestly it is and we don't have any plans to raise the price. It's
not a bait and switch scheme; just an Eclipse-based J2EE IDE that anyone can
afford. Naturally, we'll need a good bit of volume to break even on our
costs, which is really our only goal at this point. We had over 100,000
downloads of the EASIE plugins before we rolled them into MyEclipse so we
believe there is definately a market here. Right now development of
MyEclipse is funded through Genuitec's consulting services, but our goal is
to have it be self-funded by the end of the year, but earlier would be
better. ;-)
> That seems more than fair given the
> work your team (or is it other companies as well?) will be doing to make
> sure the best plugins are integrated and tested in Eclipse.
Thank you; we think it's fair too. It's not easy (or inexpensive) to build,
test, document, distribute, and support a product. Code is only about 50%
of the total work. And yes, MyEclipse is a partnership across multiple
companies; it's not just Genuitec. Currently, we have a very good
relationship with Bebbosoft (http://www.myeclipseide.com/20030505.htm) and
will be adding more partners rapidly to provide more capabilities as
directed by our user community. What our users want, we will build or
integrate. That's basically it.
However, since this newsgroup is really for talking about Web Tools, I'm
going to invite anyone interested in finding out more about MyEclipse to
come hang out on our forums rather than talk about it in this group. In my
original posting to your question I was really just trying to provide some
clarity, not start up a "MyEclipse thread." Let's all (myself included) try
to keep this group focused on the Web Tools Project.
Regards,
Todd
"Kevin" <supreme_java_guru_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bcrgdb$2a7$1@rogue.oti.com...
> You two stop it. You both had me balling!
>
> Todd, is it really only $29 a year total, no hidden costs, I can download
as
> much as I want as it becomes available? That seems more than fair given
the
> work your team (or is it other companies as well?) will be doing to make
> sure the best plugins are integrated and tested in Eclipse.
>
>
> "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> news:bcr4lg$rqs$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > This all sounds really good. I'm curious if/when the real groundwork is
> > going to be laid. Who is going to assemble the first design proposals?
> This
> > forum seems to have a diverse range of interests already, but, it may be
> > difficult to form a concensus with so many differing approaches. Several
> > groups have invested some time into plugin development. I have a feeling
> > that there is potential for some methodological bias. I'll be curious to
> see
> > how this develops. I'm not sure how I can be of assistance, but, I am
> > available.
> >
> > BTW. I was just kidding about crying easy and you weren't harsh at all
:-D
> >
> > Brandon Goodin
> >
> > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > news:bcr21h$qdc$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > Brandon,
> > >
> > > > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> > > > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
> > products
> > > > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse
> > >
> > > Precisely, we'll incorporate as a first option and build as a second
> > option.
> > >
> > > >I have actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows.
> > > > I am anxiously awaiting the Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
> > >
> > > We're moving as fast as we can and the overtime is mounting
> horrifically.
> > > :-) EA2, available 6/23, will have support for Tomcat 4 & 5. It will
> > also
> > > have full JSR-045 support so that on Tomcat 5 (or Weblogic 7.0 / 8.1)
> > you'll
> > > have full source-level JSP debugging. It's very cool. Once JBoss
comes
> > > integrated with Tomcat 5 or Jetty starts to use the latest Jasper
> compiler
> > > (I hounded the Jetty team a little at JavaOne), you'll inherit full
> source
> > > level JSP debugging on JBoss also. However, for more conversation on
> > > MyEclipse I'll encourage you, and anyone else, to come hang out on our
> > > forums rather than take up bandwidth in this fine newsgroup.
> > >
> > > > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement
> of
> > > > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)?
> > >
> > > I'm referring to extension points into which anyone can write plugins
to
> > > enable any external server to manipulated by starting / stopping /
> > > restarting / deploying / undeploying, etc. With a uniform set of
> tooling
> > at
> > > this level, anyone can then plug their favorite servers into Eclipse
as
> we
> > > did with the large set of adaptors in MyEclipse.
> > >
> > > > If your low-level tooling exists already and the community comes up
> > > > with a similar low-level tooling approach... why not contribute
> > > MyEclipse's
> > > > low-level tooling as a base from which to build?
> > > > Would MyEclipse consider that option?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is a huge difference in the concerns you have to
> > > address when building tooling for internal use versus external use.
For
> > > externally visible tooling, you have all the "what's API vs not API"
> > issues
> > > along with large extensibility requirements. Our internal tooling is
> > built
> > > in a very simple, straightforward manner to allow us to rapidly
deliver
> > > product and evolve it as needed. We can afford to evolve it because
we
> > own
> > > all the code and can refactor it as needed. This won't be the case
for
> > > Eclipse's tooling; it will need to be much more carefully designed
since
> > you
> > > basically only get to do it once. As soon as something is labeled
API,
> > you
> > > basically have to support it "as is" no matter what. What we plan on
> > doing
> > > is taking all of our lessons learned and contributing a design that we
> > hope
> > > can serve as the starting point (at least for discussions) for the
truly
> > > extensible and robust server tooling that Eclipse needs. Tooling for
> > > external consumption is an order of magnitude more difficult to
specify
> > and
> > > build than internal, at least in my experience. Luckily, we have a
PMC
> > lead
> > > that's been building tooling longer than some of the readers of this
> > > newsgroup have been alive. ;-) Sorry John, but at least the group
> you're
> > in
> > > includes me as well. :-)
> > >
> > > > I was miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP.
> > > > Don't be to harsh on me... I cry easily :-))
> > >
> > > I try not to be too harsh on anyone that asks interesting questions.
> Sorry
> > > if it came across that way. :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Todd
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > news:bcqur2$oe3$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > Todd, thanks for your response.
> > > >
> > > > I was interpreting the following sentence incorrectly...
> > > >
> > > > "The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate, extend,
> > > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they
> become
> > > > available, either in external open source projects or within the
WTP"
> > > >
> > > > I see that now you meant that you will incorporate best of breed
> > products
> > > > FROM external sources and o/s projects like WTP INTO MyEclipse. I
have
> > > > actually downloaded the MyEclipse for Windows. I am anxiously
awaiting
> > the
> > > > Tomcat support. Hurry it up! :-D
> > > >
> > > > "We plan on converting our low-level tooling to
> > > > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project. "
> > > >
> > > > Can you define low-level tooling. Are you talking about developement
> of
> > > > common J2EE components (JSP,Servlet,JSF, etc...)? If your low-level
> > > tooling
> > > > exists already and the community comes up with a similar low-level
> > tooling
> > > > approach... why not contribute MyEclipse's low-level tooling as a
base
> > > from
> > > > which to build? Isn't that what IBM did with Eclipse? Would
MyEclipse
> > > > consider that option?
> > > >
> > > > Also, I have no problem with corporate involvment in o/s projects
and
> I
> > > knew
> > > > you were going to say something about the IBM and Eclipse :-)). I
was
> > > > miinterpreting the MyEclipse relationship with WTP. Don't be to
harsh
> on
> > > > me... I cry easily :-))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Relationship between MyEclipse and the Web Tools
Project
> > > > Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM
> > > >
> > > > Brandon,
> > > >
> > > > Good questions!
> > > >
> > > > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating
> code
> > > > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)?
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely. We will always build or assimilate the best
capabilities
> > > > available as quickly as possible. Currently, MyEclipse Enterprise
> > > Workbench
> > > > is about 75% custom content and 25% integrated open source. The mix
> > will
> > > > change over time and Web Tools will be another open source venue
into
> > > which
> > > > we will push and out of which we will pull, as needed.
> > > >
> > > > > Also, how do you plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities
> > > > > that arise in functionality between your product and the webtools
> > > project?
> > > >
> > > > On a case by case basis. We plan on converting our low-level
tooling
> to
> > > > that which is agreed upon and built within the Web Tools project.
> There
> > > can
> > > > be only one "platform" and we will work toward ensuring that Web
Tools
> > has
> > > a
> > > > very good one, as I stated in my original post.
> > > >
> > > > > If a contributor supplies a better widget will yours take priority
> > > > > because it is more compatible with the MyEclipse product?
> > > >
> > > > In an apples to apples comparison, no; we would replace our "widget"
> > with
> > > > the best one and then build on top of it, quickly. That is the
> strength
> > > of
> > > > our best of breed "build or integrate" model. We plan on moving
> > products
> > > in
> > > > and out of MyEclipse all the time so that we always have the most
> > complete
> > > > and capable toolset available.
> > > >
> > > > > I just see a real danger here when two projects try
> > > > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > > >
> > > > With respect to our involvement, we won't be developing the same
> > > > functionality in two places. The areas we'll be working on within
Web
> > > > Tools, we'll only be working on within Web Tools. The only
> convergence
> > > will
> > > > come when the new server tooling is nearing completion and we have
to
> > > > migrate MyEclipse to ride on top of it. But that's really just
> another
> > > > integration issue for us internally.
> > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge"
components
> to
> > > add
> > > > > to the webtools project.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I don't believe I used the term "cutting edge" and I
didn't
> > talk
> > > > about contributing any components to the project. What I said was
> that
> > we
> > > > will try to get the ball rolling by taking a leadership position in
> the
> > > > areas where we have both interest and deep experience. We won't be
> > > > contributing any existing code, however, simply because we believe
> that
> > > with
> > > > the participation of the Eclipse community we can collectively
create
> a
> > > much
> > > > better infrastructure than any one company, including mine, has had
> the
> > > time
> > > > or talent to build.
> > > >
> > > > > I always get nervous about opensource projects with
> > > > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> > > >
> > > > If you're worried about corporate ties in open source then you
should
> > > > immediately run away from Eclipse.org. ;-) Seriously thoug, there
is
> > no
> > > > open source project with wider or deeper corporate involvement.
> Please
> > > take
> > > > a good look at the full list of "corporate ties" that run this show
we
> > all
> > > > have grown to love (http://www.eclipse.org/org/index.html). While
> > you'll
> > > > see that we're definately on the list, so are about 40 other
companies
> .
> > > You
> > > > must remember that Eclipse.org is a project that is staffed and
funded
> > by
> > > > those 40+ companies and all of them use the technology built here,
in
> > some
> > > > way, toward their commercial interests. Only if Eclipse is
> commercially
> > > > successful will these companies continue to fund and staff the open
> > source
> > > > projects; the relationship is synergistic. Remember, there are
other,
> > > much
> > > > more expensive, Eclipse-based commercial IDEs that have been built
and
> > > sold
> > > > by IBM, Rational, Borland, TogetherSoft, SAP, HP, QNX, and a host of
> > > others.
> > > > We're basically doing the same thing, but are willing to do our part
> for
> > > the
> > > > community at large by keeping our product costs low and by
> contributing
> > > > something back to the open source projects.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > > news:bcqq3b$lj9$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > A few more questions...
> > > > >
> > > > > As the webtools project develops will MyEclipse be incorporating
> code
> > > > > contributed to webtools into their own product (MyEclipse)? Also,
> how
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > plan to deal with inevitable incompatibilities that arise in
> > > functionality
> > > > > between your product and the webtools project? If a contributor
> > supplies
> > > a
> > > > > better widget will yours take priority because it is more
compatible
> > > with
> > > > > the MyEclipse product? I just see a real danger here when two
> projects
> > > try
> > > > > to develop the same functionality in two places and converge them.
> > > > > Meanwhile, one is claiming to be creating "cutting edge"
components
> to
> > > add
> > > > > to the webtools project. I always get nervous about opensource
> > projects
> > > > with
> > > > > corporate ties. Can you dispell this concern?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brandon Goodin" <mail@phase.ws> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bcqpf2$l87$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > > So, basically that means that this will essentially be MyEclipse
> > with
> > > > > > yestereday's functionality?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Todd Williams" <todd@genuitec.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:bcqkl5$i2t$1@rogue.oti.com...
> > > > > > > Deep within the "Eclipse BoF summary (JavaOne) / questions"
> thread
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > newsgroup, a poster named Kevin asked the following question
> > > regarding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Web Tools Project (WTP):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Does any of this have to do with the whole
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >myeclipseide.net thing? They seem
> > > > > > > >to be doing the same thing, putting together
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >various tools plugins like this, such as the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >EASIE j2ee plugin, jsp/web page tools, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >For $29 a year, that isn't all that bad, but I am
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >curious if the web tools is similar, part of it, etc?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since I've answered similar questions a few times, I've
decided
> > it's
> > > > now
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > FAQ (at least for me) so I'm posting a general response here
so
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be part of the public record and easily available to anyone
that
> > is
> > > > > > > interested in the topic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To set the context of my reply, my name is Todd Williams and
I'm
> > the
> > > > VP
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > Technology at Genuitec, LLC. Genuitec is the primary driving
> > force
> > > > > behind
> > > > > > > the MyEclipse initiative (http://www.myeclipseide.com) and the
> > > author
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > EASIE plugins, both mentioned in Kevin's question. In
addition,
> > > > > Genuitec
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > also a member of the Eclipse consortium and I'm our
> representative
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > Eclipse Board of Stewards. Therefore, the comments here can
be
> > > > > considered
> > > > > > > to be the official position on the relationship between
> MyEclipse,
> > > > > > Genuitec,
> > > > > > > and the WTP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, Genuitec will be participating in the WTP, primarily in
> the
> > > > areas
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the J2EE project model, Universal Server Tooling (UST), and
> server
> > > > > > > deployment. UST is actually a capability we've been lobbying
> for
> > > > > > inclusion
> > > > > > > into Eclipse for about a year now. We are excited that we can
> now
> > > > help
> > > > > > > address these areas through the WTP. I've already had several
> > > > in-depth
> > > > > > > discussions with our PMC lead, John Wiegand, to discuss the
> > > project's
> > > > > > needs.
> > > > > > > In an effort to bootstrap the interest in these core
> capabilities,
> > > > > > Genuitec
> > > > > > > will produce a high-level document that outlines our
recommended
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > these areas; based on the experience we gained developing the
> > > > MyEclipse
> > > > > > > Enterprise Workbench and integrating all brands of application
> > > servers
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > Eclipse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what's MyEclipse and how is it related to the WTP?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MyEclipse was conceived in October 2002 because we recognized
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > market needed an inexpensive, simple, supported way to use
> Eclipse
> > > for
> > > > > > J2EE
> > > > > > > development. Until MyEclipse came along, many developers were
> > > > > attempting
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > cobble together a workable J2EE IDE from Eclipse and the
> literally
> > > > > > hundreds
> > > > > > > of individual plugins that were available. Productivity
losses
> > > while
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > Eclipse were already a concern for development managers as
their
> > > > > > developers'
> > > > > > > constantly evaluated the latest plugins, worked around
> reliability
> > > > > issues,
> > > > > > > and struggled to manage functional overlap and conflicts
between
> > > > > plugins.
> > > > > > > It wasn't unusual for developers to maintain several instances
> of
> > > > > Eclipse
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > help them deal with these challenges. In a nutshell,
MyEclipse
> > > solves
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > problem by assimilating the unique capabilities contributed by
> our
> > > > > member
> > > > > > > companies, and the best of the open source efforts, to create
a
> > > > cohesive
> > > > > > > J2EE IDE that double-click installs as a product extension to
> the
> > > > latest
> > > > > > > Eclipse release build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In summary, we're expecting a synergistic relationship between
> the
> > > > WTP,
> > > > > > > Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP
in
> > an
> > > > > effort
> > > > > > > to ensure that it becomes another high quality source of web
> > tooling
> > > > > > > infrastructure. The MyEclipse team's mission is to integrate,
> > > extend,
> > > > > > > enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as
they
> > > > become
> > > > > > > available, either in external open source projects or within
the
> > > WTP,
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > before any of these features are finally rolled into Eclipse
> > itself.
> > > > As
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > result of this relationship, the WTP will benefit from
> Genuitec's
> > > > > > experience
> > > > > > > in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipse's customers will
> > continue
> > > to
> > > > > > > receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and
inexpensive
> > J2EE
> > > > > > > development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Todd Williams
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Genuitec, LLC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 10 09:15:28 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04189 seconds |
Home