| RE: [wtp-pmc] Pave framework proposal |
> I have a conceptual problem with the proposal. Together with the
> Pave framework we would like to contribute some patterns related to
> Java EE application development. However, developing new patterns is
> out of the Pave framework scope and it does not seem appropriate to
> include this contribution in the Pave proposal. We are thinking
> about proposing another project in the WTP Incubator - "Java EE
> Patterns", which will include these patterns we want to contribute.
> The Java EE Patterns project will depend on the Pave project and
> will in fact exemplify how the latter can be used.
Kaloyan, I think these are some very interesting proposals and support their
submission.
I'm not sure it is worth having two projects, though. or at least not clear to me
much is gained by having two instead of one. You say "developing new
patterns is out of the Pave framework scope" but, it is normal -- expected
even -- that projects in Eclipse not only provide API, but also some exemplary use.
The one Pattern you mention in Pave (a Pattern for a Pattern) is kind of
abstract for an example, so perhaps there's a more concrete example that
could be included in Pave? Perhaps an example pattern to create a new plugin?
Or a "hello world" Java Application?
Another reason for one project instead of two, if I'm following the proposals, the
same committers are being proposed for each ... so, is the same team initially.
And long term, I would not anticipate each consumer of Pave would be a separate project, but
would, more likely, simply be part of some other project (e.g. patterns used in DTP,
patterns used in BIRT) and not that a whole separate project would live on that had as
it's scope to be a repository for Patterns. [feel free to correct me ... what's why
I write all this down :) ]
I'd of course understand keeping them as separately installable features. And,
when the work would eventually graduate, could see them "splitting up" then ...
Pave framework (and Data Operations) going to WTP Common, or Tools perhaps,
and Java EE patterns going to WTP Java EE project.
I could imagine some arguments to have two projects instead of one, but think
those should be spelled out instead of left to my imagination. Perhaps I even
listed one? (The fact they are anticipated to end-up in different spots?). Perhaps
another is you want to avoid the perception that Pave is "tied to" WTP? Whereas
Java EE obviously would be. (But since Pave does depend on Data Operations,
it is sort of tied right now ... until all that get's sorted out). If you do want to
stick to two project proposals, that's fine, but think the current Eclipse Foundation
infrastructure (mostly) supports have sub-sub-projects, so they could be under
WTP Common and WTP Java EE (instead of WTP Incubator)?
As a more general comment on the Pave proposal: As I read it, I was looking for
some sentence that explained "How is this different from an Eclipse Operation?" or
"How is this different from a WTP Data Operation?" Perhaps it's there already and
more knowledgeable readers would understand it right away. Just thought
I'd comment on my missing it, so you could consider making it more obvious
to other readers.
I hope something I've written above will useful to improve the proposals,
but even if not I support these efforts in what ever form you settle on.
Thank you,
"Raev, Kaloyan" ---04/24/2009 09:32:37 AM---Hello,
From: | "Raev, Kaloyan" <kaloyan.raev@xxxxxxx> |
To: | "WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | 04/24/2009 09:32 AM |
Subject: | RE: [wtp-pmc] Pave framework proposal |
Sent by: | wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello WTP PMC,
I am sending you a draft of the proposal for the Pave framework I have presented on Tuesday.
<<Pave.pdf>>
The project is proposed under the Eclipse WTP top-level project. We are looking for mentors of the project.
I have a conceptual problem with the proposal. Together with the Pave framework we would like to contribute some patterns related to Java EE application development. However, developing new patterns is out of the Pave framework scope and it does not seem appropriate to include this contribution in the Pave proposal. We are thinking about proposing another project in the WTP Incubator - "Java EE Patterns", which will include these patterns we want to contribute. The Java EE Patterns project will depend on the Pave project and will in fact exemplify how the latter can be used.
Is this approach meaningful?
Greetings,
Kaloyan [attachment "Java_EE_Patterns.pdf" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
