[wtp-pmc] Re: Single component discussion meeting minutes

[Arthur Ryman <ryman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

+1

I won't be on the call tommorrow but
I support this plan and recommend that the PMC approve it.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx

Chuck Bridgham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

09/29/2005 11:27 AM

To	"'WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)'" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	cbrealey@xxxxxxxxxx, Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, deboer@xxxxxxxxxx, Der Ping Chou/Redmond/IBM@IBMUS, John Lanuti/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, kosta@xxxxxxx, naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Vijay Bhadriraju/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM, tbashor@xxxxxxx, twagner@xxxxxxx, Kevin Haaland/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Subject	Single component discussion meeting minutes

Single component meeting minutes:

On the call:   Arthur Ryman, Naci
Dai, David Williams, Kathy Chan, Tim Wagner, Ted Bashor, Konstantin Komissarchik,
Vijay Bhadriraju, John Lanuti

The meeting was held to propose and
discuss restricting the WTP components to one per project due to the negative
feedback received from multiple sources.

I introduced the meeting with a quick
overview of the scenarios and requirements, and then explained the problems
with the current solution:

"The component model is not supported
by the platform/jdt teams, as this is not seen as an evolutionary change.
  Too many existing clients would need to react which is not feasible.,
and sharing a single classpath across multiple modules is seen as a fatal
flaw"

I opened the discussion up to the attendees
to gather feedback on the proposal:

Ted Bashor
Ted Agreed with the proposal, but did
concede a "mode" could be left in the current api if needed.
Allowing the limited functionality in the multiple component case.  But
did mention the problem of declaring api around the Project "facets",
and with the proposed platform support of project filtering in 3.2, didn't
see the reason to continue on this path in R1.0.

Naci Dai
Naci stressed the developer experience
should be our first priority, and while WTP should attempt to satisfy the
user requirements, this should only proceed if the platform can support
us in a first class fashion.  Naci votes for the proposal of a single
component, and stresses that the "Component" concept is still
valid, and api should remain.

Arthur Ryman
Arthur also agrees with the proposal,
and stated his disapproval of api "modes".  One mode could
lead to two, and so on...  causing confusion and complexity.
Also brought up migration for existing
workspaces.

Tim Wagner
Tim agreed to the change - and seconded
the need for a smooth transition of existing customers

Kathy Chan
Kathy asked about existing component
api - will it still exist?, and also agreed with BEA doing this now, so
potential api in R1.0 won't need to absorb this change in the future.

Vijay Bhadriraju
Vijay asked because only one component
per project will exist, do we really need the component concept at all?
I explained the component model captures
dependency,flexible folder info, and other properties that make it a viable
concept moving forward.

Because everyone on the call was in
agreement for this restriction, I agreed to create a proposal for this
change:

1) Declare the changed component api
by end of day Friday (9/30)  - Will send out detailed api changes
so people can react - changes will NOT go into this weeks IB. (Bugzilla:
108681)
2) Make changes to Wizard/UI that allows
multiple components. (Bugzilla:  110983)
3) Create Line item for M9 to create
wizard for migrating existing "multiple component" projects.
(Done:  [110870]
Migration of 0.7 workspaces with multiple components per project [high]
)
4) Continue to define requirements and
open bugzilla for nested module file structure on platform team (Project
filters proposal).

I'll be attending next week's PMC call,
and please send me email if you have immediate questions

Thanks - Chuck

Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email:  cbridgha@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)