| Maven embedder [message #1008] |
Thu, 17 April 2008 02:29  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
I guess m2eclipse is using the Maven Embedder technology. We (Buckminster) would like to do that
too. What is the status of the Maven Embedder technology? Has it been formally released yet? Has it
been blessed with regards to the Eclipse IP process?
Another more open question is where this project and Buckminster touch base. What are our
differences and where do we share a common ground? Are there any parts that we can do together? Any
integration points that would give the user great benefits?
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Maven embedder [message #4581 is a reply to message #3683] |
Sun, 04 May 2008 08:53  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I think that pushing an official Embedder release is something that
maybe the three teams (Buckminster, IAM and M2E) can work together.
IAM is using the embedder as the runtime for every operation, while M2E
is not using it so much in favor of external maven executions (as I read).
The embedder is external to eclipse, so it's "officially" the focus of
any project, but the three will benefit from it.
Jason, maybe you can "draw the line" and we can help in pushing the
embedder towards it? Having a roadmap would also help.
Also, it would be useful to have the embedder bundle pushed into Eclipse
Orbit.
I'm cross posting this to the IAM group so we all stay on the same page
regarding possible collaboration.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> In article <fv6hnm$1up$1@build.eclipse.org> Thomas
> Hallgren<thomas@tada.se> wrote:
>> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> No formal releases of 2.1 where the embedder lives.
>>>
>>> I was hoping that the Buckminster project had started on the IP
>>> process :-)
>
>> We tried but Eclipse EMO refuses to touch things that has not yet
>> been released. I.e. a formal release is a prerequisite to get the IP
>> process started.
>
> If anyone can make a formal release happen that would be our team.
> It's really drawing a line in the sand and I could make an official
> release tomorrow but I think what's really important is that from an
> IP perspective you can validate a set of pieces and if that set of
> pieces doesn't change then the constraints on the IP are still valid.
> If a project can't be provisioned until the IP is cleared from an
> official release then that's fair. I'm in no dire rush honestly, I'm
> more interested in making the integration work correctly for users.
>>> We are focused on Maven integration so if there are any Maven
>>> technologies you are planning on using we can definitely collaborate
>>> there.
>>>
>>> What do you see as the common ground?
>
>> Two things I think. One is of course to use a common set of IP
>> approved Maven libraries :-). The other is that since both
>
> There are all sorts of things happening to make this happen. One is
> moving one of Maven's base dependent projects, Plexus, to Apache. I
> have also started doing all the legwork to put this in motion. So
> we're working on Maven on a daily basis and I'm doing the necessary
> administrative work as well.
>> Buckminster and Maven can orchestrate a build, I'd like to see
>> Buckminster 'actors' that can call on Maven goals and vice versa so
>> that a user can integrate between them seamlessly.
>
> I honestly don't know a lot about Buckminster and it's capabilities,
> but I would certainly defer to Maven users' desires in this regard. If
> they are looking for integration with Buckminster then I'm happy to
> work toward providing that.
>> Regards,
>> Thomas Hallgren
>
|
|
|
| Re: Maven embedder [message #4928 is a reply to message #4581] |
Mon, 05 May 2008 14:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
In article <fvkbir$i0t$1@build.eclipse.org> Abel Muiño
Vizcaino<amuino@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that pushing an official Embedder release is something that
> maybe the three teams (Buckminster, IAM and M2E) can work together.
I'm in the process of gathering feedback from users, and this week
while a few of us are at JavaOne I plan to conduct a series of
interviews to guide the roadmap for 2.1 of which the embedder is an
important part. You can always post suggestions and when the concrete
roadmap is done I plan to solicit feedback starting work. There will
be a lot of work that the community can contribute to.
> IAM is using the embedder as the runtime for every operation, while
> M2E is not using it so much in favor of external maven executions (as
> I read).
> The embedder is external to eclipse, so it's "officially" the focus
> of any project, but the three will benefit from it.
> Jason, maybe you can "draw the line" and we can help in pushing the
> embedder towards it? Having a roadmap would also help.
> Also, it would be useful to have the embedder bundle pushed into
> Eclipse Orbit.
> I'm cross posting this to the IAM group so we all stay on the same
> page regarding possible collaboration.
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> In article <fv6hnm$1up$1@build.eclipse.org> Thomas
>> Hallgren<thomas@tada.se> wrote:
>>> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>> No formal releases of 2.1 where the embedder lives.
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping that the Buckminster project had started on the
>>>> IP process :-)
>>
>>> We tried but Eclipse EMO refuses to touch things that has not
>>> yet been released. I.e. a formal release is a prerequisite to get
>>> the IP process started.
>>
>> If anyone can make a formal release happen that would be our team.
>> It's really drawing a line in the sand and I could make an official
>> release tomorrow but I think what's really important is that from an
>> IP perspective you can validate a set of pieces and if that set of
>> pieces doesn't change then the constraints on the IP are still
>> valid. If a project can't be provisioned until the IP is cleared
>> from an official release then that's fair. I'm in no dire rush
>> honestly, I'm more interested in making the integration work
>> correctly for users.
>>>> We are focused on Maven integration so if there are any Maven
>>>> technologies you are planning on using we can definitely
>>>> collaborate there.
>>>>
>>>> What do you see as the common ground?
>>
>>> Two things I think. One is of course to use a common set of IP
>>> approved Maven libraries :-). The other is that since both
>>
>> There are all sorts of things happening to make this happen. One
>> is moving one of Maven's base dependent projects, Plexus, to Apache.
>> I have also started doing all the legwork to put this in motion. So
>> we're working on Maven on a daily basis and I'm doing the necessary
>> administrative work as well.
>>> Buckminster and Maven can orchestrate a build, I'd like to see
>>> Buckminster 'actors' that can call on Maven goals and vice versa so
>>> that a user can integrate between them seamlessly.
>>
>> I honestly don't know a lot about Buckminster and it's
>> capabilities, but I would certainly defer to Maven users' desires in
>> this regard. If they are looking for integration with Buckminster
>> then I'm happy to work toward providing that.
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Hallgren
>>
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.07612 seconds
Home