Re: [technology-pmc] Project Proposal: Faceted Project Framework

[Eugene Kuleshov <eu@xxxxxxxx>]

Konstantin,

 I do understand all of that, but is should not have prevented person 
proposing new project from soliciting interested parties for the sake of 
this proposal, especially if he is convinced that it would be useful to 
others.

 Also, I had an experience dealing with faceted framework, and found it 
not that well documented. So, having just one committer on the proposal 
would make it hard for that person to improve this aspect of the 
project. Moving it out of WTP umbrella would actually decrease workforce 
for the project, because it won't be responsibility of the WTP anymore.

 I also concerned with moving faceted framework out of the WTP 
namespace, given that faceted framework in WTP is actually a public API. 
Please note that 3rd party integrations would have really hard time to 
support old and new stuff (it is already painful enough to support more 
then the latest WTP version). Actually I am not that much concerned 
about faceted framework itself, but how would I have to handle WTP 
project configuration in Maven tools [1] after WTP itself would be moved 
to the new incarnation of this framework. It would be really great to 
see those aspects covered in the proposal.

 Another issue that is not covered in the proposal is relationship 
between facets and natures. From your comments it seem like there is 
some historical issues between Platform and this framework, but it would 
be great to have some plan for moving forward, maybe at least plan to 
address this issue in e4.

 Please don't get me wrong, I do think that your proposal is a good 
idea, but given all circumstances, I am afraid that at this point of 
time it will create more immediate inconvenience then potential benefits 
from decoupling it from WTP and it is unclear if anyone thought of it 
from that angle.

 regards,
 Eugene

[1] http://eclipse.org/m2e/


Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
> As you say yourself, it's a chicken and an egg problem. A project that does not already have a natural dependency on functional area covered by WTP will not seriously consider this framework while it is part of WTP. The goal for making it independent is precisely to facilitate broader adoption.
>
> This discussion will be more relevant when we are starting to formulate an exit strategy for this project from Technology. Where it finds its permanent home will be driven by the precise nature of its adoption.
>
> Note that one of the more frequent questions / requests that I get is how to add facets to a Java project. This is not a WTP use case. 
>