Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work)
| Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #19747] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 14:56  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Jeff.Duska.REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov
I want to make some comments on the webtools project. I'm sorry that
this is a rather lengthy post, but there is a lot to discuss. I will
review the project proposal, the newsgroup's involvement, Ed Burnett's
IBM code base suggestion, why IBM should be the project lead, and some
concerns I have about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
It is a shame that this group hasn't been involved more. There seems to
be 'secret meetings' where the decisions happen. Leaving this group out
of the loop is not a positive start. If this group is continually
ignored, I expect the exodus will not only continue, but will grow.
The project proposal process is an excellent example of the poor
communication and involvement with the group. This process needs to be
more transparent in the future. For now, please give us a schedule for
this proposal. Real dates, not vague 'coming soon' comments. It is
pathetic that after ten months this project has no schedule of any type.
If this cannot be done, then the Eclipse Foundation needs to close this
project.
It is commendable that the Eclipse Foundation wants to ensure that IBM
doesn't have an undue amount of influence over Eclipse. Yet, it is
foolish to put this pie-in-the-sky goal over the success of a the
webtools project. IBM WSAD group has offered a significant code base
donation to this project. This donation far outweighs any other
donation. Like Bob Foster said, "Having the project fool around with
Lomboz when field-tested,commercial-quality code with the same
functionality is available seems silly." In open-source projects, the
project leader earns their role via their project contribution. It seems
like a recipe for disaster for us to break with this well-regarded
tradition.
If IBM was in the lead, then we could follow Ed Burnnet's suggestion of
using the WSAD code base as a starting point. This suggestion make sense
to me for several reasons. Actions speak louder than words. It would
rejuvenate the project by giving us forward progression that we so
desperately need. It provides us with a starting point on the web tools
architecture. As Ed has mentioned, Eclipse 1.0 architecture wasn't
perfect. What made Eclipse a success was getting it in the hands of
developers to learn what needed to be improved to better meet their needs.
We should heed Bob Foster's suggestion of caution. IBM's milestone plan
is a good starting point, but we should not tie this project to Eclipse
3.0's release schedule. It would be better to keep webtools as a
separate project. We should use Equinox and Visual Editor projects as
our guidelines. The Equinox project only recently was accepted into the
main core project. When Visual Editor was first released, it worked only
with Eclipse 2.1. There is no reason the web tools couldn't start off
supporting only Eclipse 2.1 and gradually move to supporting Eclipse 3.0.
I'll wrap this up with my concerns about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
While it does have some problems, the Lomboz project is an impressive
open-source project. ObjectWeb will make an excellent addition to the
team, just not the lead. I am basing this on Naci Dai's posts, because
he is the only ObjectWeb team member to talk about their proposal. The
lack of ObjectWeb presence here is my first red flag. Why aren't they
talking up their proposal?
Next, Naci's comments suggest that there is little communication going
on with the WSAD group and ObjectWeb. This is not good! He appears to be
suggesting that the ObjectWeb proposal will not be based on IBM donated
codebase, but Lomboz. Forgive me, but I quote Bob Foster again "...But
if those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of
Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back
at square one."
Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure from
IBM's. There appears to be little or no desire to create a reusable
architecture that others could build on. If this is the case, why the
hell are we bothering? Basic on Naci's vision, we are done since Lomboz
gives a JSP editor and server launchers.
What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
webtools, we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
continue to do it." So ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even
when the community points out that they are being stupid. PHB's
everywhere would be proud!
In summary, this project is off course. Eclipse Foundation should thank
ObjectWeb for their offer to run the project, but turn the reigns over
to the WSAD guys. The WSAD guy should come up with a schedule of when
they can release milestone one to the group. Using the existing IBM
proposal, they should publish a draft proposal that the whole group can
comment on. We should keep this as a separate project. Groups, like
ObjectWeb, that wish to donate code should be allow to post their code
into CVS. This way the members can start picking key or favorite
features to added the the WSAD code base. These new or updated features
will be used with the draft proposal to create the projects proposal. If
Eclipse Foundation, wishes to give ObjectWeb the benefit of the doubt.
Then, we need to see a draft proposal in two weeks. No matter who is
running this project, it needs to be up and running within a month.
Regards,
Jeff Duska
|
|
|
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #19823 is a reply to message #19747] |
Sat, 27 March 2004 04:24  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Just some brief corrections. I guess I am not able to communicate them well:
- I agree that WSAD contributions can be the starting point for WebTools.
>Bob Foster again "...But if those bodies are going to be devoted to
ensuring the >survival of Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the
project is right back >at square one."
>Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure from
IBM's. >There appears
- ObjectWeb proposal is not based on Lomboz. We are also not suggesting any
other reincarnation to be based on Lomboz either. We are offering resources
to help build the tools.
- IBM and ObjectWeb communicates well. However, most of this communication
is not reflected in this newgroup.
- I do not believe Ed Burnette and I mean different things. He would like
the project to start asap. He sees WSAD conntributions as the most viable
way and IBM as the only potential owner for the project. This is fair, but
IBM has iterated more than a few times that it will not own the project, it
will contribute to one that is lead by someone else. ObjectWeb is
interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and Genuitec etc.).
There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
ObjectWeb.
>What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
webtools, >we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
continue to do it."
I was not speaking on behalf of ObjectWeb or about WebTools. Participation
in the web tools project does not mean that we will not work on other
projects. If we have certain ideas that does not find its home in WebTools
project, It is healthy to try them, and try them elsewhere. That is all I
meant.
>ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even when the community points
out >that they are being stupid.
- No one is ignoring the community. All that are willing to contribute and
commit resources can participate in the process.
"Jeff.Duska" <Jeff.Duska@REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov> wrote in message
news:c421im$k6c$1@eclipse.org...
> I want to make some comments on the webtools project. I'm sorry that
> this is a rather lengthy post, but there is a lot to discuss. I will
> review the project proposal, the newsgroup's involvement, Ed Burnett's
> IBM code base suggestion, why IBM should be the project lead, and some
> concerns I have about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
>
> It is a shame that this group hasn't been involved more. There seems to
> be 'secret meetings' where the decisions happen. Leaving this group out
> of the loop is not a positive start. If this group is continually
> ignored, I expect the exodus will not only continue, but will grow.
>
> The project proposal process is an excellent example of the poor
> communication and involvement with the group. This process needs to be
> more transparent in the future. For now, please give us a schedule for
> this proposal. Real dates, not vague 'coming soon' comments. It is
> pathetic that after ten months this project has no schedule of any type.
> If this cannot be done, then the Eclipse Foundation needs to close this
> project.
>
> It is commendable that the Eclipse Foundation wants to ensure that IBM
> doesn't have an undue amount of influence over Eclipse. Yet, it is
> foolish to put this pie-in-the-sky goal over the success of a the
> webtools project. IBM WSAD group has offered a significant code base
> donation to this project. This donation far outweighs any other
> donation. Like Bob Foster said, "Having the project fool around with
> Lomboz when field-tested,commercial-quality code with the same
> functionality is available seems silly." In open-source projects, the
> project leader earns their role via their project contribution. It seems
> like a recipe for disaster for us to break with this well-regarded
> tradition.
>
> If IBM was in the lead, then we could follow Ed Burnnet's suggestion of
> using the WSAD code base as a starting point. This suggestion make sense
> to me for several reasons. Actions speak louder than words. It would
> rejuvenate the project by giving us forward progression that we so
> desperately need. It provides us with a starting point on the web tools
> architecture. As Ed has mentioned, Eclipse 1.0 architecture wasn't
> perfect. What made Eclipse a success was getting it in the hands of
> developers to learn what needed to be improved to better meet their needs.
>
> We should heed Bob Foster's suggestion of caution. IBM's milestone plan
> is a good starting point, but we should not tie this project to Eclipse
> 3.0's release schedule. It would be better to keep webtools as a
> separate project. We should use Equinox and Visual Editor projects as
> our guidelines. The Equinox project only recently was accepted into the
> main core project. When Visual Editor was first released, it worked only
> with Eclipse 2.1. There is no reason the web tools couldn't start off
> supporting only Eclipse 2.1 and gradually move to supporting Eclipse 3.0.
>
> I'll wrap this up with my concerns about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
> While it does have some problems, the Lomboz project is an impressive
> open-source project. ObjectWeb will make an excellent addition to the
> team, just not the lead. I am basing this on Naci Dai's posts, because
> he is the only ObjectWeb team member to talk about their proposal. The
> lack of ObjectWeb presence here is my first red flag. Why aren't they
> talking up their proposal?
>
> Next, Naci's comments suggest that there is little communication going
> on with the WSAD group and ObjectWeb. This is not good! He appears to be
> suggesting that the ObjectWeb proposal will not be based on IBM donated
> codebase, but Lomboz. Forgive me, but I quote Bob Foster again "...But
> if those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of
> Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back
> at square one."
>
> Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure from
> IBM's. There appears to be little or no desire to create a reusable
> architecture that others could build on. If this is the case, why the
> hell are we bothering? Basic on Naci's vision, we are done since Lomboz
> gives a JSP editor and server launchers.
>
> What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
> webtools, we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
> continue to do it." So ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even
> when the community points out that they are being stupid. PHB's
> everywhere would be proud!
>
> In summary, this project is off course. Eclipse Foundation should thank
> ObjectWeb for their offer to run the project, but turn the reigns over
> to the WSAD guys. The WSAD guy should come up with a schedule of when
> they can release milestone one to the group. Using the existing IBM
> proposal, they should publish a draft proposal that the whole group can
> comment on. We should keep this as a separate project. Groups, like
> ObjectWeb, that wish to donate code should be allow to post their code
> into CVS. This way the members can start picking key or favorite
> features to added the the WSAD code base. These new or updated features
> will be used with the draft proposal to create the projects proposal. If
> Eclipse Foundation, wishes to give ObjectWeb the benefit of the doubt.
> Then, we need to see a draft proposal in two weeks. No matter who is
> running this project, it needs to be up and running within a month.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Duska
>
|
|
|
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #19921 is a reply to message #19823] |
Sat, 27 March 2004 09:12 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
>ObjectWeb is interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and
Genuitec etc.).
>There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
ObjectWeb.
A point of clarity is in order here. Genuitec is a participant in the
ObjectWeb proposal just as Eteration is. The statement above did not make
this point clear. We fully back ObjectWeb's proposal effort and Christophe
Ney's leadership of that and look forward to participating in the areas of
interest to us, principally flexible project models and a universal external
tooling infrastructure.
Regards,
Todd
"Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
news:c43guq$udh$1@eclipse.org...
> Just some brief corrections. I guess I am not able to communicate them
well:
>
> - I agree that WSAD contributions can be the starting point for WebTools.
>
>
>
> >Bob Foster again "...But if those bodies are going to be devoted to
> ensuring the >survival of Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and
the
> project is right back >at square one."
> >Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure
from
> IBM's. >There appears
>
>
> - ObjectWeb proposal is not based on Lomboz. We are also not suggesting
any
> other reincarnation to be based on Lomboz either. We are offering
resources
> to help build the tools.
>
> - IBM and ObjectWeb communicates well. However, most of this
communication
> is not reflected in this newgroup.
>
> - I do not believe Ed Burnette and I mean different things. He would like
> the project to start asap. He sees WSAD conntributions as the most viable
> way and IBM as the only potential owner for the project. This is fair,
but
> IBM has iterated more than a few times that it will not own the project,
it
> will contribute to one that is lead by someone else. ObjectWeb is
> interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and Genuitec etc.).
> There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
> ObjectWeb.
>
>
> >What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
> webtools, >we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
> continue to do it."
>
>
> I was not speaking on behalf of ObjectWeb or about WebTools.
Participation
> in the web tools project does not mean that we will not work on other
> projects. If we have certain ideas that does not find its home in
WebTools
> project, It is healthy to try them, and try them elsewhere. That is all I
> meant.
>
> >ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even when the community points
> out >that they are being stupid.
>
> - No one is ignoring the community. All that are willing to contribute
and
> commit resources can participate in the process.
>
>
> "Jeff.Duska" <Jeff.Duska@REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov> wrote in message
> news:c421im$k6c$1@eclipse.org...
> > I want to make some comments on the webtools project. I'm sorry that
> > this is a rather lengthy post, but there is a lot to discuss. I will
> > review the project proposal, the newsgroup's involvement, Ed Burnett's
> > IBM code base suggestion, why IBM should be the project lead, and some
> > concerns I have about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
> >
> > It is a shame that this group hasn't been involved more. There seems to
> > be 'secret meetings' where the decisions happen. Leaving this group out
> > of the loop is not a positive start. If this group is continually
> > ignored, I expect the exodus will not only continue, but will grow.
> >
> > The project proposal process is an excellent example of the poor
> > communication and involvement with the group. This process needs to be
> > more transparent in the future. For now, please give us a schedule for
> > this proposal. Real dates, not vague 'coming soon' comments. It is
> > pathetic that after ten months this project has no schedule of any type.
> > If this cannot be done, then the Eclipse Foundation needs to close this
> > project.
> >
> > It is commendable that the Eclipse Foundation wants to ensure that IBM
> > doesn't have an undue amount of influence over Eclipse. Yet, it is
> > foolish to put this pie-in-the-sky goal over the success of a the
> > webtools project. IBM WSAD group has offered a significant code base
> > donation to this project. This donation far outweighs any other
> > donation. Like Bob Foster said, "Having the project fool around with
> > Lomboz when field-tested,commercial-quality code with the same
> > functionality is available seems silly." In open-source projects, the
> > project leader earns their role via their project contribution. It seems
> > like a recipe for disaster for us to break with this well-regarded
> > tradition.
> >
> > If IBM was in the lead, then we could follow Ed Burnnet's suggestion of
> > using the WSAD code base as a starting point. This suggestion make sense
> > to me for several reasons. Actions speak louder than words. It would
> > rejuvenate the project by giving us forward progression that we so
> > desperately need. It provides us with a starting point on the web tools
> > architecture. As Ed has mentioned, Eclipse 1.0 architecture wasn't
> > perfect. What made Eclipse a success was getting it in the hands of
> > developers to learn what needed to be improved to better meet their
needs.
> >
> > We should heed Bob Foster's suggestion of caution. IBM's milestone plan
> > is a good starting point, but we should not tie this project to Eclipse
> > 3.0's release schedule. It would be better to keep webtools as a
> > separate project. We should use Equinox and Visual Editor projects as
> > our guidelines. The Equinox project only recently was accepted into the
> > main core project. When Visual Editor was first released, it worked only
> > with Eclipse 2.1. There is no reason the web tools couldn't start off
> > supporting only Eclipse 2.1 and gradually move to supporting Eclipse
3.0.
> >
> > I'll wrap this up with my concerns about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
> > While it does have some problems, the Lomboz project is an impressive
> > open-source project. ObjectWeb will make an excellent addition to the
> > team, just not the lead. I am basing this on Naci Dai's posts, because
> > he is the only ObjectWeb team member to talk about their proposal. The
> > lack of ObjectWeb presence here is my first red flag. Why aren't they
> > talking up their proposal?
> >
> > Next, Naci's comments suggest that there is little communication going
> > on with the WSAD group and ObjectWeb. This is not good! He appears to be
> > suggesting that the ObjectWeb proposal will not be based on IBM donated
> > codebase, but Lomboz. Forgive me, but I quote Bob Foster again "...But
> > if those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of
> > Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back
> > at square one."
> >
> > Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure from
> > IBM's. There appears to be little or no desire to create a reusable
> > architecture that others could build on. If this is the case, why the
> > hell are we bothering? Basic on Naci's vision, we are done since Lomboz
> > gives a JSP editor and server launchers.
> >
> > What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
> > webtools, we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
> > continue to do it." So ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even
> > when the community points out that they are being stupid. PHB's
> > everywhere would be proud!
> >
> > In summary, this project is off course. Eclipse Foundation should thank
> > ObjectWeb for their offer to run the project, but turn the reigns over
> > to the WSAD guys. The WSAD guy should come up with a schedule of when
> > they can release milestone one to the group. Using the existing IBM
> > proposal, they should publish a draft proposal that the whole group can
> > comment on. We should keep this as a separate project. Groups, like
> > ObjectWeb, that wish to donate code should be allow to post their code
> > into CVS. This way the members can start picking key or favorite
> > features to added the the WSAD code base. These new or updated features
> > will be used with the draft proposal to create the projects proposal. If
> > Eclipse Foundation, wishes to give ObjectWeb the benefit of the doubt.
> > Then, we need to see a draft proposal in two weeks. No matter who is
> > running this project, it needs to be up and running within a month.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff Duska
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #19956 is a reply to message #19921] |
Sun, 28 March 2004 04:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
Todd Williams wrote:
>>ObjectWeb is interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and
>
> Genuitec etc.).
>
>>There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
>
> ObjectWeb.
>
> A point of clarity is in order here. Genuitec is a participant in the
> ObjectWeb proposal just as Eteration is. The statement above did not make
> this point clear. We fully back ObjectWeb's proposal effort and Christophe
> Ney's leadership of that and look forward to participating in the areas of
> interest to us, principally flexible project models and a universal external
> tooling infrastructure.
>
Now you guys see what I mean. They have clear interest in getting what
they want and trying their best to not release what the community wants.
They rather charge for it. Unfortunately, people with such interest
are part of the proposal. In my opinion, it makes the proposal tinted
with wested interest.
IBM, after being a entity driven by profit, has more to gain by
acceptance of Eclipse as a whole. It makes sense for IBM to release more
functionality into base eclipse.
There is clearly conflict of interest issue with people making the proposal.
Java community demands to accept IBM's contributions. Set it free and
see if it flies.
If the design/architect team can come up with better things two years
later, we would like it. But today, we demand IBM's contributions. It's
unfair to the community that design/architect team is blocking IBM's
contributions.
If Eclipse consortium people are reading this then I hope they would
take action that's in community's benefit and that of Eclipse's. Not of
IBM's image or members with wested interest in limiting Eclipse
functionality.
Regards,
Jonathan Smith
> Regards,
> Todd
>
>
>
>
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
> news:c43guq$udh$1@eclipse.org...
>
>>Just some brief corrections. I guess I am not able to communicate them
>
> well:
>
>>- I agree that WSAD contributions can be the starting point for WebTools.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob Foster again "...But if those bodies are going to be devoted to
>>ensuring the >survival of Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and
>
> the
>
>>project is right back >at square one."
>> >Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure
>
> from
>
>>IBM's. >There appears
>>
>>
>>- ObjectWeb proposal is not based on Lomboz. We are also not suggesting
>
> any
>
>>other reincarnation to be based on Lomboz either. We are offering
>
> resources
>
>>to help build the tools.
>>
>>- IBM and ObjectWeb communicates well. However, most of this
>
> communication
>
>>is not reflected in this newgroup.
>>
>>- I do not believe Ed Burnette and I mean different things. He would like
>>the project to start asap. He sees WSAD conntributions as the most viable
>>way and IBM as the only potential owner for the project. This is fair,
>
> but
>
>>IBM has iterated more than a few times that it will not own the project,
>
> it
>
>>will contribute to one that is lead by someone else. ObjectWeb is
>>interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and Genuitec etc.).
>>There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
>>ObjectWeb.
>>
>>
>> >What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
>>webtools, >we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
>>continue to do it."
>>
>>
>>I was not speaking on behalf of ObjectWeb or about WebTools.
>
> Participation
>
>>in the web tools project does not mean that we will not work on other
>>projects. If we have certain ideas that does not find its home in
>
> WebTools
>
>>project, It is healthy to try them, and try them elsewhere. That is all I
>>meant.
>>
>> >ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even when the community points
>>out >that they are being stupid.
>>
>>- No one is ignoring the community. All that are willing to contribute
>
> and
>
>>commit resources can participate in the process.
>>
>>
>>"Jeff.Duska" <Jeff.Duska@REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov> wrote in message
>>news:c421im$k6c$1@eclipse.org...
>>
>>>I want to make some comments on the webtools project. I'm sorry that
>>>this is a rather lengthy post, but there is a lot to discuss. I will
>>>review the project proposal, the newsgroup's involvement, Ed Burnett's
>>>IBM code base suggestion, why IBM should be the project lead, and some
>>>concerns I have about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
>>>
>>>It is a shame that this group hasn't been involved more. There seems to
>>>be 'secret meetings' where the decisions happen. Leaving this group out
>>>of the loop is not a positive start. If this group is continually
>>>ignored, I expect the exodus will not only continue, but will grow.
>>>
>>>The project proposal process is an excellent example of the poor
>>>communication and involvement with the group. This process needs to be
>>>more transparent in the future. For now, please give us a schedule for
>>>this proposal. Real dates, not vague 'coming soon' comments. It is
>>>pathetic that after ten months this project has no schedule of any type.
>>>If this cannot be done, then the Eclipse Foundation needs to close this
>>>project.
>>>
>>>It is commendable that the Eclipse Foundation wants to ensure that IBM
>>>doesn't have an undue amount of influence over Eclipse. Yet, it is
>>>foolish to put this pie-in-the-sky goal over the success of a the
>>>webtools project. IBM WSAD group has offered a significant code base
>>>donation to this project. This donation far outweighs any other
>>>donation. Like Bob Foster said, "Having the project fool around with
>>>Lomboz when field-tested,commercial-quality code with the same
>>>functionality is available seems silly." In open-source projects, the
>>>project leader earns their role via their project contribution. It seems
>>>like a recipe for disaster for us to break with this well-regarded
>>>tradition.
>>>
>>>If IBM was in the lead, then we could follow Ed Burnnet's suggestion of
>>>using the WSAD code base as a starting point. This suggestion make sense
>>>to me for several reasons. Actions speak louder than words. It would
>>>rejuvenate the project by giving us forward progression that we so
>>>desperately need. It provides us with a starting point on the web tools
>>>architecture. As Ed has mentioned, Eclipse 1.0 architecture wasn't
>>>perfect. What made Eclipse a success was getting it in the hands of
>>>developers to learn what needed to be improved to better meet their
>
> needs.
>
>>>We should heed Bob Foster's suggestion of caution. IBM's milestone plan
>>>is a good starting point, but we should not tie this project to Eclipse
>>>3.0's release schedule. It would be better to keep webtools as a
>>>separate project. We should use Equinox and Visual Editor projects as
>>>our guidelines. The Equinox project only recently was accepted into the
>>>main core project. When Visual Editor was first released, it worked only
>>>with Eclipse 2.1. There is no reason the web tools couldn't start off
>>>supporting only Eclipse 2.1 and gradually move to supporting Eclipse
>
> 3.0.
>
>>>I'll wrap this up with my concerns about ObjectWeb as the project lead.
>>> While it does have some problems, the Lomboz project is an impressive
>>>open-source project. ObjectWeb will make an excellent addition to the
>>>team, just not the lead. I am basing this on Naci Dai's posts, because
>>>he is the only ObjectWeb team member to talk about their proposal. The
>>>lack of ObjectWeb presence here is my first red flag. Why aren't they
>>>talking up their proposal?
>>>
>>>Next, Naci's comments suggest that there is little communication going
>>>on with the WSAD group and ObjectWeb. This is not good! He appears to be
>>>suggesting that the ObjectWeb proposal will not be based on IBM donated
>>>codebase, but Lomboz. Forgive me, but I quote Bob Foster again "...But
>>>if those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of
>>>Lomboz genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back
>>>at square one."
>>>
>>>Naci's vision of the project, as Ed mentioned, is quite a departure from
>>>IBM's. There appears to be little or no desire to create a reusable
>>>architecture that others could build on. If this is the case, why the
>>>hell are we bothering? Basic on Naci's vision, we are done since Lomboz
>>>gives a JSP editor and server launchers.
>>>
>>>What really burned me was this quote "... I can assure you even after
>>>webtools, we will do things, which may seem stupid to some, but will
>>>continue to do it." So ObjectWeb plans to ignore the community, even
>>>when the community points out that they are being stupid. PHB's
>>>everywhere would be proud!
>>>
>>>In summary, this project is off course. Eclipse Foundation should thank
>>>ObjectWeb for their offer to run the project, but turn the reigns over
>>>to the WSAD guys. The WSAD guy should come up with a schedule of when
>>>they can release milestone one to the group. Using the existing IBM
>>>proposal, they should publish a draft proposal that the whole group can
>>>comment on. We should keep this as a separate project. Groups, like
>>>ObjectWeb, that wish to donate code should be allow to post their code
>>>into CVS. This way the members can start picking key or favorite
>>>features to added the the WSAD code base. These new or updated features
>>>will be used with the draft proposal to create the projects proposal. If
>>>Eclipse Foundation, wishes to give ObjectWeb the benefit of the doubt.
>>>Then, we need to see a draft proposal in two weeks. No matter who is
>>>running this project, it needs to be up and running within a month.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Jeff Duska
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #20119 is a reply to message #19747] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 03:05 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: christophe.ney.objectweb.org
Hi Jeff,
Sorry for not replying earlier, but I was on the road all week long.
I am very happy to see such level of interest in this project, this shows
there is a lot of potential. At the same time there is need for coordination
too, and I understand this has not been found outside IBM yet.
At ObjectWeb.org, we could have started this way faster using the usual
community-based way of doing thing, but many people at Eclipse are
very concerned getting going without a committed lead. This is
the reason why ObjectWeb is setting up a proposal with companies
who are willing to commit a certain amount of resources from the start.
Setting-up such proposal with multiple companies takes time, but our
plan is to propose it at the next Eclipse board meeting. So far, I have got
the commitment from 10 organizations for a total of 8 men-year and we
are now working on a roadmap for first-year deliverables. The proposal
does not set any initial code base, the adequation of existing code-base
will be discussed when the project has started.
With the resources we currently have, we beleive we can conduct two
main subprojects. One on "Standard Web Tools" (mainly W3C language
support) and the other on "J2EE Standard Tools" (J2EE application dev.),
some additional exploratory activities will also be included.
Last but not least, I am not leaving this group out of the loop, and all of
you
know what we are doing. Some have contacted me to join the proposal, and
they are now part of it. If you wish to do the same please contact me.
Thanks,
Christophe
Executive Director
ObjectWeb Consortium
"Jeff.Duska" <Jeff.Duska@REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov> a
|
|
| |
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #20133 is a reply to message #19956] |
Mon, 29 March 2004 09:21 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: robert.varga.fathomtechnology.com
Comments under ...
"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c4667p$b0g$1@eclipse.org...
> Todd Williams wrote:
> >>ObjectWeb is interested, so are others (including SAS and Ed, Todd and
> >
> > Genuitec etc.).
> >
> >>There is no reason why they should not put a proposal forward, or join
> >
> > ObjectWeb.
> >
> > A point of clarity is in order here. Genuitec is a participant in the
> > ObjectWeb proposal just as Eteration is. The statement above did not
make
> > this point clear. We fully back ObjectWeb's proposal effort and
Christophe
> > Ney's leadership of that and look forward to participating in the areas
of
> > interest to us, principally flexible project models and a universal
external
> > tooling infrastructure.
> >
>
> Now you guys see what I mean. They have clear interest in getting what
> they want and trying their best to not release what the community wants.
> They rather charge for it. Unfortunately, people with such interest
> are part of the proposal. In my opinion, it makes the proposal tinted
> with wested interest.
>
Hey, guy, what the hell are you speaking about? MyEclipse started out as
plugins
for application server tooling, that's their strongest part. The other parts
in MyEclipse
are implemented as incorporating other plugins in MyEclipse and integrating
them, but they
may not have the right to redistribute it!!!
MyEclipse JSP Editor and JSP Compiler is coming
from the BEJY plugin, for which I don't know the licence, but I don't
suppose that it would be open source
with its obfuscated code.
Struts stuff is originating from EasyStruts (actually they would have the
right
to open source that stuff, with EasyStruts becoming open source itself).
> IBM, after being a entity driven by profit, has more to gain by
> acceptance of Eclipse as a whole. It makes sense for IBM to release more
> functionality into base eclipse.
>
It would wreak havoc in the release schedule of Eclipse to try to fit all
this code
into the release plan of Eclipse 3.0, not to mention it was not planned into
the roadmap anyway.
> There is clearly conflict of interest issue with people making the
proposal.
>
> Java community demands to accept IBM's contributions. Set it free and
> see if it flies.
>
> If the design/architect team can come up with better things two years
> later, we would like it. But today, we demand IBM's contributions. It's
> unfair to the community that design/architect team is blocking IBM's
> contributions.
>
It is again the same stuff as was with Lomboz. It takes time to open-source
a codebase
in a form that is digestible by outsiders. I guess you would want
documentation, tutorials,
things like that, that may not even have been there in the code when it
resided in WSAD
source tree. If you want quality stuff to be open-sourced, it may also take
time. They had
a couple-of-month timeframe for that stuff anyway.
> If Eclipse consortium people are reading this then I hope they would
> take action that's in community's benefit and that of Eclipse's. Not of
> IBM's image or members with wested interest in limiting Eclipse
> functionality.
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan Smith
>
> ...
|
|
| |
| Re: Comments about this project... (was Stop the politics and get to work) [message #20263 is a reply to message #20143] |
Sun, 18 April 2004 06:35 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: robert.varga.fathomtechnology.com
Ok, this was misunderstandable. What I meant was that they may not have
the right to redistribute the source of the mentioned stuff, so they may
not be allowed to open-source it.
I had absolutely no intention to suggest that the MyEclipse plugin might
be containing anything that the developers are not allowed to distribute
in the form they are distributing it.
Robert Varga
Steve Viens wrote:
> Robert Varga wrote:
>
>> The other parts in MyEclipse are implemented as incorporating other
>> plugins in MyEclipse and integrating them, but they may not have the
>> right to redistribute it!!!
>>
>> MyEclipse JSP Editor and JSP Compiler is coming from the BEJY plugin,
>> for which I don't know the licence, but I don't suppose that it would
>> be open source with its obfuscated code.
>
>
> Not that I want this particular thread to continue but ...
>
> It's probably safe to assume that BEJY.org doesn't have issue with
> Genuitec since it's homepage clearly states: "This plugin is no longer
> available from bejy.org. Go to MyEclipse to get it!"
>
> Steve
> steve@viens.net
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 08 17:42:03 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05251 seconds |
Home