Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [orbit-dev] Interested in Contributing LPG v1.1

Hey Christian,

You do NOT have to run this through the IP process again to contribute it to Orbit.  We will likely have to do the standard "manual" tracing for some time.

As for naming, I agree that the simple package name they have used does not seem like a good bundle name.  In similar cases with which I am familiar people have gone with the project name (e.g., net.sourceforge...).  As for using "orbit" names, to date that has not been our approach.  In a sense we are encroaching on people's namespace but only to the degree that they are not occupying it.  If they were to start shipping this lib as a bundle and wanting to call it net.sourceforge.lpg, we would happily adopt their bundling of the lib.  An alternate viewpoint on using eclipse names is that we would be taking credit for the work as ours and introducing ambiguity around the content (e.g., did Eclipse change it somehow or is it the real thing from the originator?).

So if I am understanding your message correctly, you are offering to contribute the bundling of lpg and to continuing maintenance and updating of that library right?


Christian Damus/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

11/02/2006 01:17 PM

Please respond to
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

[orbit-dev] Interested in Contributing LPG v1.1


The MDT UML2-OCL component (formerly known as EMFT OCL) currently includes version 1.1 of a parser generator run-time library from the LPG ("LALR Parser Generator") project at SourceForge, which I would like to contribute to Orbit.  I know of at least one other Eclipse project in the Europa group that is interested in using this library.

I think I understand that, since this library was already approved by EMO for OCL's 1.0 release, it doesn't need any additional approval for

 1) Contribution to Orbit

 2) Consumption from Orbit by the OCL project

However, this library was IP-approved before IPzilla was instituted.  Do I need to run it through that process in order to meet Orbit's traceability requirements?

Also, this case touches on some of the bundle-naming concerns mentioned on the Orbit wiki.  LPG consists of a single package lpg.lpgjavaruntime, but I think a more appropriate bundle name would be based on the SourceForge project name:  net.sourceforge.lpg or the Orbit project name:  org.eclipse.orbit.lpg.  I, personally, prefer the latter because it wouldn't look like I am assuming somebody else's identity.  Do the current Orbit committers have a concensus, yet, on the recommended approach?

More information about the LPG project can be found at



Christian W. Damus
Component Lead, MDT UML2-OCL
IBM Rational Software_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list

Back to the top