|RE: [technology-pmc] Approval for Sapphire Creation Review
Sure. I will send another
reversion to EMO to include this info.
XWT is already covered under
relation to e4 section. I will add an XWT term reference to that section.
I can add the following “Relation
to PMF” section. Let me know if you would like to tweak the wording:
“PMF is a framework for
generating UI based on design-time description of UI structure and data
bindings. In PMF, code generators are used to produce UI code for various
platforms. PMF plays no role at runtime. Sapphire does not generate UI code. The
UI is rendered at runtime. As the result, Sapphire is limited to Java-based
runtimes, but produces more compact UI binaries (no generated UI code) and produced
UI can take advantage of improvements in the renderer without being
re-compiled. On the other hand, PMF is not limited to Java-based runtimes and
can generate UI code for other languages given an appropriate code generator.”
We have spent some time on the comparison of Sapphire with
XWT and PMF. I think it is very important to state the relation in your
proposal to give a clear message to the community.
I believe that Sapphire project has met the Eclipse
Development Process requirements to move forward with the Creation Review. In
1. Sufficient time has passed (6 weeks to be exact).
2. There has been decent amount of community discussion on
the forum  and on the PMC mailing list.
3. Community outreach has taken place. In particular, I wrote
three articles that explain the technology and posted links to those in various
forums. There is also an interview with jaxenter .
4. EMO has performed a trademark review and has approved the
name. Oracle paperwork on trademark assignment is pending.
Please vote your approval to allow Sapphire to move towards
the Creation Review or indicate what other actions you would like to see prior
Back to the top