|[soa-pmc] Re: Mangrove proposal|
Done. Also, forum creation request was done.I believe we are now waiting for Mike's +1 on the updated draft proposal.
http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/ Anne Jacko emo@xxxxxxxxxxx On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
+1Anne, can you change the first sentence to indicate that Mangrove will be created under the SOA TLP (now that it actually exists)?Thanks, Wayne Anne Jacko wrote:Wayne (cc PMC, Mike, Adrian),I've uploaded the new Mangrove proposal. Please take a look -- thanks.http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mangrove/ Anne Jacko emo@xxxxxxxxxxx On Jan 7, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Adrian Mos wrote:Hi Wayne,with some delay (holidays...), here's the updated version of the proposal that takes into account your suggestions as agreed to in my previous email.<mangrove-proper-proposal2.zip> Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Adrian. On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:11 PM, Adrian Mos wrote:Hi Wayne, thanks a lot for the comments, see my replies inline:I'm concerned that the scope is not explicit enough. If I'm reading the proposal correctly, the intent is to take the intermediate model that's currently part of STP and turn it into an separate project in its own right; in this context, the discussion of integrating the various "SOA editors, runtime and deployment tools" makes sense. However, that bit about the intermediate model itself is missing from the scope section.you are right, it is the current Intermediate Model component (in Eclipse sense) that I propose to turn into a sub-project of its own (with an extended set of responsibilities). I will make it clearer in the scope that it's the IM.Actually... the "description" section sounds like a better candidate for the scope. Perhaps you can just merge these two sections.OK I can merge them if you think it makes a clearer read.The proposal talks about "proposed components". Are you using "component" in the Eclipse Development Process sense? i.e. do you intend to have different sets of commit rights for each component? Or are these just functional areas?Just functional areas, it's true that the word component is highly overloaded. So it's really just "blocks" of stuff. I can call the section Functional Areas, to make the separation very clear.I'll make the changes in the next couple of days or so and send the improved version back to you.Thanks for the help. Cheers, Adrian.-- Wayne Beaton, The Eclipse Foundation http://www.eclipse.org I'm going to EclipseCon! http://www.eclipsecon.org
Back to the top