Re: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

["Mos, Adrian" <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Marc,

 

OK sure, let me know as soon as you have new elements.

 

Cheers,
Adrian.

 

From: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: vendredi 16 décembre 2011 09:41
To: Mos, Adrian
Cc: SOA PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

 

Hi Adrian

First thanks for taking our needs in consideration.

"Whether it makes sense" is the right question. In the EasySOA (*) project we definitely need a full design-to-runtime Mangrove chain. If we want and up-to-date one, I guess we could use JWT in lieu of BPMN for design level modeling ; obviously that would probably imply some work on both sides. We'll think it up on our own side and provide an answer in the following weeks !

Regards,
Marc


Le 15/12/2011 16:45, Mos, Adrian a écrit :

Hi Marc,

 

And sorry for the slow reply… So the problem with putting Mangrove in the simultaneous release is that it has plugins that depend on the old BPMN editor. These plugins are grouped in the Mangrove BPMN feature so if Mangrove were to join the release it would need to have this feature out... Also I haven’t started work on the Stardust integration which would be natural to have in the release if Stardust is also going to be part of it.

 

On the other hand, perhaps we could have a stripped-down version of Mangrove joining the release, the core, the SCA connectivity, and maybe a few other things, not sure whether this makes sense? But I’m open to any suggestions/requests and if it does actually make sense to join then I think we can...

 

Any thoughts?

Adrian.

 

From: Marc Dutoo [mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: jeudi 8 décembre 2011 12:04
To: SOA PMC mailing list
Cc: Mos, Adrian
Subject: Re: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

 

Hi Adrian

Mangrove not in Juno ? Really too bad, at JWT we'd have to remove our Mangrove plugins for the simultaneous release...

Regards,
Marc


Le 08/12/2011 11:04, Marc.Gille@xxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

Awesome, Adrian.

 

Let me know if you have questions.

 

Marc

 

From: soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mos, Adrian
Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2011 10:34
To: SOA PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

 

Hi Marc,

 

This is great news. Looking forward to looking at the modeller code for Mangrove connectivity as soon as I get some time!

 

Adrian.

 

From: soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc.Gille@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: mercredi 7 décembre 2011 18:37
To: soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

 

Thanks, Adrian.

 

We were actually planning to sign-up for Juno with Stardust. We have 30% of the code (all modeler code) approved and in Github. We will submit the Kernel code for IP check this week and hope to belief in January.

 

Marc

 

From: soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:soa-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mos, Adrian
Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 15:59
To: SOA PMC mailing list
Subject: [soa-pmc] Mangrove not in Juno

 

Hi guys,

 

After considering the pros/cons of signing up Mangrove for Juno, I think that the best option is to skip Juno. The reasons are as follows:

-          The current BPMN editor is being archived

-          The new BPMN editor will not be in Juno

-          Stardust will not be in Juno

-          Engineering are still using the old code-base, I think the migration from STP-IM to Mangrove should be complete before committing to Juno, as there might be changes needed and I don’t know when these would occur

 

Overall I don’t see much value of putting it into Juno now and I’d rather benefit from the freedom of adding and changing stuff to it anytime than be restricted by the Juno code-freeze and so on.

Any thought on this? If there is no strong opinion to pursue Juno for Mangrove, I’ll stick to this idea.

 

Adrian.

_______________________________________________

soa-pmc mailing list

soa-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/soa-pmc