[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [soa-iwg] ECF remote services
|
Scott,
You may not agree with the SOA IWG charter and think it is a bad
decision. That is your right and opinion but it doesn't make it wrong.
The reason we created the IWG concept is to allow organizations to
address the solution needs not being addressed by existing projects. I
agree 100% that asking Eclipse projects to do tools and runtimes is not
useful or consistent. However, I trust you agree developers do need
tools and runtimes to complete their job. Therefore, the SOA IWG is
trying to create an integrated solution of tools and runtimes to meet
the needs of a SOA developer. This is exactly why we created the IWG
concept.
I would also like to point out that packages can be created by any
committer, not just IWG. There is nothing stopping you from creating
your own package to meet the needs of your community.
Ian
On 1/12/2010 6:56 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
Donald,
Donald Smith wrote:
My worry about this thread is that there are two very distinct issues
that are getting conflated, and as long as that happens, I doubt
there will be any progress and just heated disagreement.
1 – The process of working groups, packages, charters and
distribution. I don’t think this group or this thread is the right
place for the conversation. It needs to take place with the board
Committer reps, at the Architecture council, at the EMO, etc. As I’ve
noted before, I don’t know if we’ll ever agree about how these work –
but the processes and programs have been agreed to and built in past
years after much consideration and debate. If there are things that
need to be addressed as you are saying – then the discussion needs to
happen elsewhere.
That's fine with me. But once again the charter has been invoked as
justification for what is a poor decision...i.e. 'the charter says
that X has to have both runtime and tools components therefore...'.
So, as long as it's invoked to justify such a decision, it should be
challenged....because such justification is wrong (and bollux to the
argument that there was lots of consideration and debate...I just
don't buy that that means it's reasonable).
2 – You are asking what looks like a very reasonable question to
include some well regarded software in the SOA IWG Package. I still
don’t think anyone has said no to that – just that the IWG requires
help with it’s integration and inclusion and it sure would be nice if
there was some way that it fit with the other components. The reason
is, because as you’ve noted there has been a lot of disjoint SOA
projects at Eclipse, and a very important goal of the IWG is to try
to decrease that. Just like the release trains have taken many years
to increase the cohesiveness of the core, the SOA IWG is looking to
do the same.
Then maybe it would be a good idea to not build a vertical/silo
orientation into the charter (by essentially requiring that projects
do everything themselves instead of working collaboratively)...and/or
sanction the invocation of this rule to justify a decision about
package inclusion.
We should remember that our/ECF's remote services work *does already*
have tooling associated with it (as I've repeatedly made quite clear).
So the whole argument about this is spurious (because even if a
requirement to include tooling and runtime both were
reasonable...which it is not...we have already met that requirement).
Scott
_______________________________________________
soa-iwg mailing list
soa-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-iwg
