| Buckminster and Orbit [message #6289] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 17:23  |
 Philippe Ombredanne
Messages: 386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas:
I saw the interesting posts you made on Orbit.
I think that there are little or no overlap between Orbit and Buckminster.
Orbit goals -now that I understand them more- are simple and narrow:
Provide a way out of the mess existing for Eclipse projects when they
consume third party jars, including multiple packaging, dedundant bundles,
and so on.
And primarily providing a repository of packaged, approved and legally
cleared bundles for Eclipse Foundation projects.
I think it will solve a practical problem faced by all Eclipse projects now.
In contrast I see Buckminster being concerned with how things can be
provisioned at a developer level.
A different goal alltogether, and nonetheless very intriguing (and
interesting) to me.
I can see how an Orbit repository could become a provider to Buckminster,
and how Buckminster could provide tooling to smooth the developer
experience.
I am correct?
Now on the fun side, when I first looked at Buckminster a while back, I was
scared by its magnitude, and the difficulty to understand what it could do
for me, as a developer. I nicknamed your project Buckmonster ;-) no offense
meant.
Anyway you did entice me to revisit Buckminster seriously.
Cordially
--
Cheers, Philippe
philippe ombredanne | nexB
1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
http://www.nexb.com
http://EasyEclipse.org
|
|
|
| Re: Buckminster and Orbit [message #7534 is a reply to message #6289] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 18:31  |
|
Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Thomas:
> I saw the interesting posts you made on Orbit.
> I think that there are little or no overlap between Orbit and Buckminster.
>
> Orbit goals -now that I understand them more- are simple and narrow:
> Provide a way out of the mess existing for Eclipse projects when they
> consume third party jars, including multiple packaging, dedundant bundles,
> and so on.
> And primarily providing a repository of packaged, approved and legally
> cleared bundles for Eclipse Foundation projects.
> I think it will solve a practical problem faced by all Eclipse projects now.
>
> In contrast I see Buckminster being concerned with how things can be
> provisioned at a developer level.
> A different goal alltogether, and nonetheless very intriguing (and
> interesting) to me.
> I can see how an Orbit repository could become a provider to Buckminster,
> and how Buckminster could provide tooling to smooth the developer
> experience.
>
> I am correct?
>
Yes, I think so. At least from the Buckminster point of view. Perhaps with the exception
that Buckminster is not limited to provisioning for developers. It's also targeted to be
used by install tools in order to deploy component stacks used in runtime.
I can also see some cases where it would be beneficial for the Orbit project to make use of
Buckminster in order to maintain the component stack.
Other then that, I think it's important that the Orbit and Buckminster projects remain in
close contact so that we can share views on issues where we touch base (as in the case of
mapping non conformant OSGi versions for instance).
> Now on the fun side, when I first looked at Buckminster a while back, I was
> scared by its magnitude, and the difficulty to understand what it could do
> for me, as a developer. I nicknamed your project Buckmonster ;-) no offense
> meant.
>
Non taken. Until we have it all nicely packaged and well documented, I can see how that
nickname has its merits :-) We're working on that...
> Anyway you did entice me to revisit Buckminster seriously.
>
Great! Thoughts and ideas are most welcome of course.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|
|
|
| Re: Buckminster and Orbit [message #561659 is a reply to message #6289] |
Mon, 04 September 2006 18:31 |
|
Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
> Thomas:
> I saw the interesting posts you made on Orbit.
> I think that there are little or no overlap between Orbit and Buckminster.
>
> Orbit goals -now that I understand them more- are simple and narrow:
> Provide a way out of the mess existing for Eclipse projects when they
> consume third party jars, including multiple packaging, dedundant bundles,
> and so on.
> And primarily providing a repository of packaged, approved and legally
> cleared bundles for Eclipse Foundation projects.
> I think it will solve a practical problem faced by all Eclipse projects now.
>
> In contrast I see Buckminster being concerned with how things can be
> provisioned at a developer level.
> A different goal alltogether, and nonetheless very intriguing (and
> interesting) to me.
> I can see how an Orbit repository could become a provider to Buckminster,
> and how Buckminster could provide tooling to smooth the developer
> experience.
>
> I am correct?
>
Yes, I think so. At least from the Buckminster point of view. Perhaps with the exception
that Buckminster is not limited to provisioning for developers. It's also targeted to be
used by install tools in order to deploy component stacks used in runtime.
I can also see some cases where it would be beneficial for the Orbit project to make use of
Buckminster in order to maintain the component stack.
Other then that, I think it's important that the Orbit and Buckminster projects remain in
close contact so that we can share views on issues where we touch base (as in the case of
mapping non conformant OSGi versions for instance).
> Now on the fun side, when I first looked at Buckminster a while back, I was
> scared by its magnitude, and the difficulty to understand what it could do
> for me, as a developer. I nicknamed your project Buckmonster ;-) no offense
> meant.
>
Non taken. Until we have it all nicely packaged and well documented, I can see how that
nickname has its merits :-) We're working on that...
> Anyway you did entice me to revisit Buckminster seriously.
>
Great! Thoughts and ideas are most welcome of course.
Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.25947 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
