Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » WTP proposal feedback: Standards
| WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #22722] |
Thu, 13 May 2004 10:48  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ed.burnette.REMOVE.THIS.sas.com
The proposal says: "Outside the project's scope will be support for
vendor-specific application architectures, such as Microsoft .Net, or for
non-standard extensions of standards-based environments, such as Apache
Struts."
With my "vendor hat on" (though I'm not the "official SAS representative"),
what I care about is what people are actually using. A lot of them are using
Struts, PHP, ASP.NET, Velocity, ColdFusion, and so forth. Clearly these are
Web technologies that need Web tools. And any Web tools should be in the
scope of a Web Tools project.
It's one thing to say that we don't have anybody to work on, for example,
Struts, so it's not *currently* part of the project, but it's quite another
to say that it's out of scope and would have to go in the Tools or
Technologies project, if anywhere. I believe the former philosophy should be
taken instead of the latter.
Earlier the proposal says: "Where standards exist, we will adhere to them.
Where standards are emerging, we will wait for them to emerge."
I dissagree with the second part of this. Eclipse should be on the cutting
edge, not the trailing edge, of new technology. For example, EJB 3.0 - would
WTP wait until it's done and final to start to support it or would WTP be on
the fore-front of the proposals and example implementations? This statement
says WTP would wait but by then it would be too late to have much of an
impact. Thin-rich clients is another example.
--Ed
|
|
| | |
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #22852 is a reply to message #22809] |
Thu, 13 May 2004 12:13  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zack.vogistix.com
Christophe,
Your response addresses the proposal's position with regard to scope, but
what of bleeding-edge technologies that are within the bounds of the
project? Are you planning to move forward with an aggressive adoption
strategy that encompasses all the latest and greatest?
Regards,
Zack
Christophe Ney wrote:
> Eric,
> Your post is exactly in line with what we are trying to acheive.
> Once we have tackled standards, we can always consider expanding
> the scope, and until this is the case, on-the-edge innovation could find
> a home in the Eclipse Technology project.
> Thanks,
> Christophe
> ObjectWeb
> "Eric Hauser" <ehauser@www.in.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
> c802jm$ujs$1@eclipse.org...
> > I think one important thing that is overlooked by a lot of posts about
> > the proposal is the fact that developers are getting a little ahead of
> > themselves. This isn't really a direct comment about your post, but I
> > think it is important to address the issue. I've seen a lot of people
> > ask for support for Struts, Hibernate, Spring, etc., but I don't think
> > that these tools should receive a lot of attention in the early
> > iterations of the tools. Eclipse does not have built in support for
> > even the simplest things such as the standards in the upper two
> > quadrants in the Web tools infrastructure. These should be the things
> > that are concentrated on first. If the scope of the release is to try
> > to have a tool for the framework of the month, then I don't think the
> > project will receive as much use. I'm suggesting that innovation be
> > stiffled, I just believe that support for the standards should be top
> > priority.
> >
|
|
| |
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #22940 is a reply to message #22896] |
Thu, 13 May 2004 14:15 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zack.vogistix.com
Christophe,
Well, I wasn't referring to anything specific, but I think Ed phrahsed it
nicely:
"For example, EJB 3.0 - would WTP wait until it's done and final to start
to support it or would WTP be on the fore-front of the proposals and
example implementations?"
Regards,
Zack
Christophe Ney wrote:
> Not sure what you refer to, but we will definitively attempt to design the
> web tools for bleeding-edge technologies emerging from revision of
> J2EE standards.
> Christophe
> ObjectWeb
> "Zack Angelo" <zack@vogistix.com> a écrit dans le message news:
> c806qc$52v$1@eclipse.org...
> > Christophe,
> >
> > Your response addresses the proposal's position with regard to scope, but
> > what of bleeding-edge technologies that are within the bounds of the
> > project? Are you planning to move forward with an aggressive adoption
> > strategy that encompasses all the latest and greatest?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Zack
> >
> > Christophe Ney wrote:
> >
> > > Eric,
> >
> > > Your post is exactly in line with what we are trying to acheive.
> >
> > > Once we have tackled standards, we can always consider expanding
> > > the scope, and until this is the case, on-the-edge innovation could find
> > > a home in the Eclipse Technology project.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christophe
> > > ObjectWeb
> >
> > > "Eric Hauser" <ehauser@www.in.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
> > > c802jm$ujs$1@eclipse.org...
> > > > I think one important thing that is overlooked by a lot of posts about
> > > > the proposal is the fact that developers are getting a little ahead of
> > > > themselves. This isn't really a direct comment about your post, but I
> > > > think it is important to address the issue. I've seen a lot of people
> > > > ask for support for Struts, Hibernate, Spring, etc., but I don't think
> > > > that these tools should receive a lot of attention in the early
> > > > iterations of the tools. Eclipse does not have built in support for
> > > > even the simplest things such as the standards in the upper two
> > > > quadrants in the Web tools infrastructure. These should be the things
> > > > that are concentrated on first. If the scope of the release is to try
> > > > to have a tool for the framework of the month, then I don't think the
> > > > project will receive as much use. I'm suggesting that innovation be
> > > > stiffled, I just believe that support for the standards should be top
> > > > priority.
> > > >
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #22984 is a reply to message #22809] |
Thu, 13 May 2004 16:45 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ed.burnette.REMOVE.THIS.sas.com
The proposal should say that then. As it is, it just says it's out of scope,
which to me means even if some team came along next month and wanted to
commit several developers to working on, say, Struts plug-ins, it would go
in some other project even if it's not cutting edge.
--
Ed Burnette, co-author, Eclipse in Action
www.eclipsepowered.org
"Christophe Ney" <christophe.ney@objectweb.org> wrote in message
news:c804qq$22g$1@eclipse.org...
> Eric,
>
> Your post is exactly in line with what we are trying to acheive.
>
> Once we have tackled standards, we can always consider expanding
> the scope, and until this is the case, on-the-edge innovation could find
> a home in the Eclipse Technology project.
>
> Thanks,
> Christophe
> ObjectWeb
>
> "Eric Hauser" <ehauser@www.in.gov> a
|
|
| | |
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #23112 is a reply to message #22984] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 10:03 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I would disagree with the position that Struts should be within the scope of
WST or JST: Struts is an open-technology not a standard, in comparison to
EJB, which is a JCP standard. The diagram under Project Scope describes the
scop of WST and JST nicely. However, I am not so sure when it comes to WTP.
I do not believe that inclusion of Struts is a resource problem. It is a
scope issue. There will be more than a few companies that are interested in
providing resources for widely used open technologies such as struts,
hibernate, xdoclet, etc. There are technologies such as JSF, a JCP
standard, but not in the scope of the proposal.
The question we should pose is: Should WTP become an umbrella for additional
subprojects like Struts, in addition to the fundamental subprojects WST and
JST, or should these technologies go elsewhere? My personal opinion is that
the first choice is better.
"Ed Burnette" <ed.burnette@REMOVE.THIS.sas.com> wrote in message
news:c80mcv$oj4$1@eclipse.org...
> The proposal should say that then. As it is, it just says it's out of
scope,
> which to me means even if some team came along next month and wanted to
> commit several developers to working on, say, Struts plug-ins, it would go
> in some other project even if it's not cutting edge.
>
> --
> Ed Burnette, co-author, Eclipse in Action
> www.eclipsepowered.org
>
> "Christophe Ney" <christophe.ney@objectweb.org> wrote in message
> news:c804qq$22g$1@eclipse.org...
> > Eric,
> >
> > Your post is exactly in line with what we are trying to acheive.
> >
> > Once we have tackled standards, we can always consider expanding
> > the scope, and until this is the case, on-the-edge innovation could find
> > a home in the Eclipse Technology project.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christophe
> > ObjectWeb
> >
> > "Eric Hauser" <ehauser@www.in.gov> a
|
|
|
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #23256 is a reply to message #23112] |
Fri, 14 May 2004 14:42 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zack.vogistix.com
Well, I certainly agree that the inital scope of the project should be
restricted to building a solid, modular framework and then from there
building a set of tools that are common to almost all Java web development
projects (e.g., JSP/HTML and EJB configuration file editors and server
environment controllers).
But down the road as projects like Struts gain even more widespread
acceptance and we finish the groundwork for WTP, is it really shrewd to
permanently exclude a tool that would inevitably appeal to a very large
percentage of web developers simply because the technology on which it's
based isn't formally standardized?
With that said, I also think you should stay careful not to be
overinclusive. I agree that every fly-by-night framework should not have
a place in the web tooling. I just believe that while choosing to exclude
features simply because they're not ratified by some standards body is a
good heuristic for reducing feature creep and staying focused, we should
be open to exceptions and not to leave things out that are common to many
Java web developers.
Regards,
Zack
Naci Dai wrote:
> I would disagree with the position that Struts should be within the scope of
> WST or JST: Struts is an open-technology not a standard, in comparison to
> EJB, which is a JCP standard. The diagram under Project Scope describes the
> scop of WST and JST nicely. However, I am not so sure when it comes to WTP.
> I do not believe that inclusion of Struts is a resource problem. It is a
> scope issue. There will be more than a few companies that are interested in
> providing resources for widely used open technologies such as struts,
> hibernate, xdoclet, etc. There are technologies such as JSF, a JCP
> standard, but not in the scope of the proposal.
> The question we should pose is: Should WTP become an umbrella for additional
> subprojects like Struts, in addition to the fundamental subprojects WST and
> JST, or should these technologies go elsewhere? My personal opinion is that
> the first choice is better.
> "Ed Burnette" <ed.burnette@REMOVE.THIS.sas.com> wrote in message
> news:c80mcv$oj4$1@eclipse.org...
> > The proposal should say that then. As it is, it just says it's out of
> scope,
> > which to me means even if some team came along next month and wanted to
> > commit several developers to working on, say, Struts plug-ins, it would go
> > in some other project even if it's not cutting edge.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Burnette, co-author, Eclipse in Action
> > www.eclipsepowered.org
> >
> > "Christophe Ney" <christophe.ney@objectweb.org> wrote in message
> > news:c804qq$22g$1@eclipse.org...
> > > Eric,
> > >
> > > Your post is exactly in line with what we are trying to acheive.
> > >
> > > Once we have tackled standards, we can always consider expanding
> > > the scope, and until this is the case, on-the-edge innovation could find
> > > a home in the Eclipse Technology project.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christophe
> > > ObjectWeb
> > >
> > > "Eric Hauser" <ehauser@www.in.gov> a écrit dans le message news:
> > > c802jm$ujs$1@eclipse.org...
> > > > I think one important thing that is overlooked by a lot of posts about
> > > > the proposal is the fact that developers are getting a little ahead of
> > > > themselves. This isn't really a direct comment about your post, but I
> > > > think it is important to address the issue. I've seen a lot of people
> > > > ask for support for Struts, Hibernate, Spring, etc., but I don't think
> > > > that these tools should receive a lot of attention in the early
> > > > iterations of the tools. Eclipse does not have built in support for
> > > > even the simplest things such as the standards in the upper two
> > > > quadrants in the Web tools infrastructure. These should be the things
> > > > that are concentrated on first. If the scope of the release is to try
> > > > to have a tool for the framework of the month, then I don't think the
> > > > project will receive as much use. I'm suggesting that innovation be
> > > > stiffled, I just believe that support for the standards should be top
> > > > priority.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #23386 is a reply to message #23112] |
Sun, 16 May 2004 00:47 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ed.burnette.REMOVE.THIS.sas.com
"Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
news:c82j77$p2m$1@eclipse.org...
> I would disagree with the position that Struts should be within the scope
of
> WST or JST: Struts is an open-technology not a standard, in comparison to
> EJB, which is a JCP standard. The diagram under Project Scope describes
the
> scop of WST and JST nicely. However, I am not so sure when it comes to
WTP.
>
> I do not believe that inclusion of Struts is a resource problem. It is a
> scope issue. There will be more than a few companies that are interested
in
> providing resources for widely used open technologies such as struts,
> hibernate, xdoclet, etc. There are technologies such as JSF, a JCP
> standard, but not in the scope of the proposal.
Why should JSF not be within the scope of WTP? It's web related and it's
even a JCP "standard".
(I feel compelled to point out that JCP isn't really a standards body in the
sense of W3C, ISO, ANSI, ECMA, and so forth, due to its, ah, unique
organizational structure and history. However JSRs are certainly community
developed and multi-vendor sourced. Maybe the best way to think of them is
"open design". Compare that with Struts, which has one open source
implementation, and no design separate from the implementation. But I
digress.)
My point is that inclusion/exclusion in WTP scope (which is different from
initial focus) should not be based on whether there is a standard or
multi-vendor specification. In my opinion it should simply be based on
whether it's strongly Web related and widely used.
Take the XML editor for example. The case for including this in WTP scope is
pretty weak in my opinion. Yes, it's widely used, there are standards for
it, and people do use it for Web things. But it would be a stretch to say
it's strongly Web related. We were using it in Eclipse for plug-in
manifests, ant scripts, and may other things before Web Tools came along. I
would argue that XML editing really belongs in the Platform project along
with Text editing. Same goes for the SQL Query editor. But we don't have to
be ridgid about the scope question. Something could be incubated in WTP for
historical contribution reasons and then moved to Platform or elsewhere
later.
--Ed
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. I am not
acting as an official representative to the Eclipse Foundation.
|
|
|
| Re: WTP proposal feedback: Standards [message #23511 is a reply to message #23386] |
Sun, 16 May 2004 10:45 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Ed,
Thx for your comments. Here's my view of how we should scope the project.
Ed Burnette wrote:
>
> Why should JSF not be within the scope of WTP? It's web related and it's
> even a JCP "standard".
>
Any spec that's in J2EE is in scope. JSF is not in J2EE yet, but it will
probably be in the near future. However, there are many JSRs that are
not part of J2EE and may never be. For example, JDO is not in J2EE, even
though it does have a following.
The approach of the JST subproject is to focus on APIs that are in J2EE
and create reusable components that others can build on. Users will get
well-integrated basic tools (like JSP source editor and debugger). This
approach lets vendors create value-add tools that provide advanced
function for J2EE (e.g. a WYSIWYG JSP editor) or support popular or
emerging standards and technologies (e.g. Struts, JSF, JDO, Hiberate).
> Take the XML editor for example. The case for including this in WTP scope is
> pretty weak in my opinion. Yes, it's widely used, there are standards for
> it, and people do use it for Web things. But it would be a stretch to say
> it's strongly Web related. We were using it in Eclipse for plug-in
> manifests, ant scripts, and may other things before Web Tools came along. I
> would argue that XML editing really belongs in the Platform project along
> with Text editing. Same goes for the SQL Query editor. But we don't have to
> be ridgid about the scope question. Something could be incubated in WTP for
> historical contribution reasons and then moved to Platform or elsewhere
> later.
XML is a Web technology. It was created by W3C and is the foundation of
an entire family of related W3C standards. The fact that plug-in
manifests are written in XML syntax is nice, but any other syntax could
have been choosen with no appreciable difference. There is no need for
any interoperability with other IDEs, runtimes, etc.
In fact, plug-ins use a non-standard way to extend their syntax. They do
not use new namespaces for parameters to extension points, and even
though they do define the syntax of the parameters using XSD, it is a
only a simplified subset of XSD. This is fine for plug-ins because they
want something lean and mean, but you can't use them as good example of
implementing general purpose, standards-compliant, reusable XML tool
components. Similar comments apply to Ant.
However, I agree that this project should create XML tools that are
self-contained so that if other projects need them, they can pull in a
very small footprint.
Concerning SQL, I agree that it is not a Web standard, but at present
there is no Data project at Eclipse, and we should have as our goal the
creation of tools that allow the end-to-end development of simple,
complete Web apps. Most Web apps will access a relational database so we
should at least provide some simple query building tools. I think it is
reasonable to to assume that in the future, there may be a Data tools
project, with database design tools, at which point we should move the
query tools there.
-- Arthur
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 07 15:30:57 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.08333 seconds |
Home