[wtp-dev] Architecture Groups position on "feature proposal"

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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).