[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded

BJ Hargrave wrote on 09/13/2007 03:13:56 PM:

> > Why not reify the structure we think we have?
> I think part of the issue is that there is no common view of the structure
> "we think we have" to reify it.

I agree that there is likely no common view currently.  That does not mean there cannot be a (reasonably) common view.  That is the point of this discussion.

My sense is that with the eventual addition of p2 (an obvious component) and further bundles into Bundles, the current "one size fits all" view will come into question in two ways.  From the outside -  "why is p2 a component and xxx not" and the inside - Bundles becomes a big soup.

> >  would the http service be part of "standard services" or "server side"?
> You totally avoid this question by avoiding arbitrary groupings like
> standard services and server side.

Completely agree and I much prefer thinking without boxes.  Especially arbitrary ones.  Please do not confuse my comments with actually pushing this particular solution. I am exploring the space and reacting to reports from new folks to the community and people looking to get involved.  They are confused by the current (lack of) structure.  They want to know about/get involved in area X but cannot tell what bundles relate to area X.  As I mentioned before, making a formal component may not be the best answer.  Then again, at a certain point there is enough activity/interest/content/infrastruture to tip the balance and make the "weight" of a component worthwhile.

> Perhaps this whole topic deserves a small slot on the Equinox Summit
> agenda?

Sure.  The agenda is a wiki so it can be added by anyone.  Speaking of which, people should be adding their agenda items...