Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[wtp-dev] Architecture Groups position on "feature proposal"

Just to publically document it, ...

... since the general process for changes  to proposed APIs post M4 is
that the Architecture Group review proposal and approve or reject it, and
then the planning group (and/or PMC) decide to approve or reject it, or
decide what other action to take.

There is agreement that architecturally the "feature proposal" posted to wtp-dev is
important, desirable, and basically correct (some details will have to be
elaborated or fined tuned, as some posts to this news group have pointed out
-- that is, there are still some issues or ambiguities of how to handle certain aspects, which
do not invalidate it, but which would appear to stretch the already thin deadline).

So, to be explicit it, we, the Architecture Group, do approve the proposal from an architectural point of view,
and would deem it important to WTP to accommodate it (or at least to not prevent it from being accommodated later).

= = = =

To embellish a little,
I'll also add there seems to be general consensus from developers/component leads
that the full changes and implementation is not containable in M5 and still maintain quality.

So, given this, the planning group and PMC will need to make the harder final decision and appropriate action.
Some alternatives, for example, would be
1) forget about it, ... this client feature/scenario won't be supported
2) delay the release to accommodate changes and still maintain quality
3) come up with a compromise, to back off and to not declare the effect proposed APIs as API, and
implement and finish post 1.0. Component leads may have to clarify which Proposed API this effects,
... flexible project API is one obvious one. Is server API (IRuntime) another? Or can that API change be contained
even if not implemented in a useful way until post 1.0? (Some effected groups, such as web services,
don't have proposed API yet, so would not need a reading from them).

= = = = =

I'll also personally thank everyone for their quick attention to this and continuing the
discussion in an open, collaborative way. (But, don't sacrifice other M5 priorities, given
the decision and direction on this isn't final yet -- it should be soon).

Back to the top