Home » Language IDEs » ServerTools (WTP) » Stop the politics and get to work
| Stop the politics and get to work [message #19154] |
Sun, 21 March 2004 07:31  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
This is ridiculous.
What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
(with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
People are desparately asking for this functionality.
Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
building EAR file from the project.
IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
vested interest in this project not succeeding.
What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
and let people vote for what they want.
It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
Jonathan Smith
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19157 is a reply to message #19154] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 16:51  |
 Andreas Würtz
Messages: 9
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Does this mean, IBM has code to offer and this group is not ready/willing to
accept it?
Sorry if the question seems stupid, but I am quite new to this group - and
quite astonished, too, because I thought it was the other way round (IBM not
being ready to donate the code, maybe for copyright reasons, as is the case
in some features in the VE project).
Cheers
Andy
"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c3jfrh$87u$1@eclipse.org...
> This is ridiculous.
>
> What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
>
> What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
> product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
> accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
>
> IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
> Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
> People are desparately asking for this functionality.
>
> Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
> tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
> all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> building EAR file from the project.
>
> IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> vested interest in this project not succeeding.
>
> What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> and let people vote for what they want.
>
> It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
>
> Jonathan Smith
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19160 is a reply to message #19154] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 16:55 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: robert.varga.fathomtechnology.com
This is not that simple.
IBM's project structure (what you are editing with the tool) is quite rigid,
if I recall some comments regarding that,
and I guess it would not comply even to your requirements in this mail.
I haven't used Lomboz in more than a year now, but still I see people
complaining about an overwhelming
amount of bugs which suggest, that the entire Lomboz codebase is crap as far
as code quality is concerned.
No sane person would try to maintain that codebase, I think, since rewriting
from scratch with additional features
in mind would probably be easier than get anything error-free and
maintainable out of the current state of the Lomboz
codebase.
Therefore it is not the situation you describe as taking a codebase and
consider that 80%.
Whichever codebase is chosen, there would be great amounts of work done on
that, and that
needs an ably led project team, rules in place to ensure code quality, and
the other usual things
which a project needs if it is to be completed successfully, and not to be
degrading into chaos and anarchy.
The project is in this phase now. I agree, that it is getting long as hell,
but still it is necessary. At least things now
start moving, in contrast to what has (or actually has not) been happening a
couple of months before.
Hopefully we will get some stuff out of it quite soon.
Also do remember, that the aim of the Web tools project is to be a Web Tools
project, and not a Servlet+Struts+EJB Tools project,
what the current state of the Lomboz project is, and the current state of
the IBM project is, aside of the web-service and DB tools
in it.
I don't mean to belittle IBM's contributions, but what I got from its
description document, it lacks a number of parts of these requirements.
Of course I may be mistaken, but I don't know how much support IBM's current
contributions provide e.g. for PHP and PHP project deployment,
which also should be supported by this project. I guess probably nothing.
That means, that a general-purpose project structure, server and deployment
management framework is to be incorporated. That means
design from scratch to be done before fitting in existing contributions.
I described a general-purpose project and deployment management structure
method in MyEclipse forums, feel free to add your comments to there as well.
I hope something similar (or even the same specification) will be
incorporated into the web tools project. The URL is:
http://www.myeclipseide.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file =viewtopic&t=1841
Do remember however, that I am in no way affiliated with Genuitec guys,
except for using their tools, but my opinion is not their opinion, so don't
take
anything I say or write there as an opinion of theirs. I just wrote them
that specs as a feature or rather enhancement request.
I will probably also submit that specification part to the webtools project
once that is started up. If I can also submit it now, then please someone
indicate
that :-)
Regards,
Robert Varga
"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c3jfrh$87u$1@eclipse.org...
> This is ridiculous.
>
> What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
>
> What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
> product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
> accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
>
> IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
> Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
> People are desparately asking for this functionality.
>
> Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
> tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
> all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> building EAR file from the project.
>
> IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> vested interest in this project not succeeding.
>
> What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> and let people vote for what they want.
>
> It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
>
> Jonathan Smith
|
|
| |
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19166 is a reply to message #19163] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 17:39 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dave.paperstack.com
Andreas Würtz wrote:
> Does this mean, IBM has code to offer and this group is not
> ready/willing to accept it?
Robert Varga wrote:
> No, this means, that the group is not yet ready to accept
> any contributions, since the project organization is not
> yet in place.
Surely, "yes", this group is not *ready* to accept it.
Which does seem bizarrely bureaucratic to me. I don't think I can be the
only person to have drooled over the feature set proffered by IBM.
Why is it taking so long to sort out the project organization ?
D.
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19170 is a reply to message #19160] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 17:45 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
PHP? Are you kidding me?
Why are we even bothered about it? How many people do you know that do
PHP, mod-perl, java and asp (why not, if we go by your logic) in one
project? Why not take more chewable chunks and give the users something to
work with in the meantime, while the Architects/Designers of this project
go into a mode of web IDE nirvana.
IBM contributions (JSP, XML and WSDL along with SQL editor) are enough for
JAVA related web development. That's what the user community is asking
for. Don't try to be everything to everybody, you will fail miserably.
There are plugins available that let you edit perl, python, PHP files.
That's all the users want. What are you going to achive by having eclipse
module that understand all ways of working with HTTP protocol. It's
endless, Are you gonig to write the way cobol handles web pages?
The community wants a JSP and XML editor. Give them that. IBM
contributions are tested in WSAD. It should be good enough.
The project goal should be to get IBM contrubutions included by 3.0
release. That will increase Eclipe chances of acceptence by order of
magnitude.
Let's do this guys. Java community deserves it.
Thanks,
Jonathan Smith
Robert Varga wrote:
> This is not that simple.
> IBM's project structure (what you are editing with the tool) is quite rigid,
> if I recall some comments regarding that,
> and I guess it would not comply even to your requirements in this mail.
> I haven't used Lomboz in more than a year now, but still I see people
> complaining about an overwhelming
> amount of bugs which suggest, that the entire Lomboz codebase is crap as far
> as code quality is concerned.
> No sane person would try to maintain that codebase, I think, since rewriting
> from scratch with additional features
> in mind would probably be easier than get anything error-free and
> maintainable out of the current state of the Lomboz
> codebase.
> Therefore it is not the situation you describe as taking a codebase and
> consider that 80%.
> Whichever codebase is chosen, there would be great amounts of work done on
> that, and that
> needs an ably led project team, rules in place to ensure code quality, and
> the other usual things
> which a project needs if it is to be completed successfully, and not to be
> degrading into chaos and anarchy.
> The project is in this phase now. I agree, that it is getting long as hell,
> but still it is necessary. At least things now
> start moving, in contrast to what has (or actually has not) been happening a
> couple of months before.
> Hopefully we will get some stuff out of it quite soon.
> Also do remember, that the aim of the Web tools project is to be a Web Tools
> project, and not a Servlet+Struts+EJB Tools project,
> what the current state of the Lomboz project is, and the current state of
> the IBM project is, aside of the web-service and DB tools
> in it.
> I don't mean to belittle IBM's contributions, but what I got from its
> description document, it lacks a number of parts of these requirements.
> Of course I may be mistaken, but I don't know how much support IBM's current
> contributions provide e.g. for PHP and PHP project deployment,
> which also should be supported by this project. I guess probably nothing.
> That means, that a general-purpose project structure, server and deployment
> management framework is to be incorporated. That means
> design from scratch to be done before fitting in existing contributions.
> I described a general-purpose project and deployment management structure
> method in MyEclipse forums, feel free to add your comments to there as well.
> I hope something similar (or even the same specification) will be
> incorporated into the web tools project. The URL is:
> http://www.myeclipseide.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file =viewtopic&t=1841
> Do remember however, that I am in no way affiliated with Genuitec guys,
> except for using their tools, but my opinion is not their opinion, so don't
> take
> anything I say or write there as an opinion of theirs. I just wrote them
> that specs as a feature or rather enhancement request.
> I will probably also submit that specification part to the webtools project
> once that is started up. If I can also submit it now, then please someone
> indicate
> that :-)
> Regards,
> Robert Varga
> "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:c3jfrh$87u$1@eclipse.org...
> > This is ridiculous.
> >
> > What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
> >
> > What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
> > product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
> > accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> > (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
> >
> > IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
> > Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
> > People are desparately asking for this functionality.
> >
> > Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> > project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
> > tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> > requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> > editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
> > all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> > but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> > building EAR file from the project.
> >
> > IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> > around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> > before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> > vested interest in this project not succeeding.
> >
> > What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> > many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> > and let people vote for what they want.
> >
> > It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
> >
> > Jonathan Smith
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19172 is a reply to message #19170] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 19:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: robert.varga.fathomtechnology.com
"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c3n8o0$6ps$1@eclipse.org...
> PHP? Are you kidding me?
> Why are we even bothered about it? How many people do you know that do
> PHP, mod-perl, java and asp (why not, if we go by your logic) in one
> project? Why not take more chewable chunks and give the users something to
> work with in the meantime, while the Architects/Designers of this project
> go into a mode of web IDE nirvana.
Not necessarily together. But a developer is a kind of anymal, which likes
to do everything
with its favorite tool, if possible. Now a general-purpose framework means
that it can do PHP and static HTML or anything
besides servlets and jsp and Struts.
Now, what do you think the better solution is, to have a different
infrastructure for the deployment process
of HTML and of PHP and of J2EE webapps? Or one generic solution as described
in my post mentioned previously?
If you said 3 separate, then you have 3 different methods to deploy static
HTML files (it is an extremity I know, but
deployment unit management and deployment processes should be factored out,
and not rewritten for each kind of file editor).
>
> IBM contributions (JSP, XML and WSDL along with SQL editor) are enough for
> JAVA related web development. That's what the user community is asking
> for. Don't try to be everything to everybody, you will fail miserably.
The community is also asking for a good HTML editor, and even PHP editors.
The Webtools project goals enumerate
HTML and possible PHP support. If the deployment and management of projects
containing these files are not designed into
the tool at once, then you end up rewriting the foundation of the tool.
Guess what that does to compatibility with plugins written
to the previous version of the web tools.
>
> There are plugins available that let you edit perl, python, PHP files.
> That's all the users want.
The users want to be able to deploy these projects as well.
>What are you going to achive by having eclipse
> module that understand all ways of working with HTTP protocol. It's
I did not mention anything about this. What I mentioned is a common solution
for setting up
project structure and common mechanisms for deployment of units of these
uniformly described project structures.
> endless, Are you gonig to write the way cobol handles web pages?
>
No one mentioned any such thing.
> The community wants a JSP and XML editor. Give them that. IBM
> contributions are tested in WSAD. It should be good enough.
>
> The project goal should be to get IBM contrubutions included by 3.0
> release. That will increase Eclipe chances of acceptence by order of
> magnitude.
>
This will probably not get into 3.0. This is a separate tool with a
different project schedule as I understand, the same way as VE.
>...
> Let's do this guys. Java community deserves it.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan Smith
>
> Robert Varga wrote:
>
> > This is not that simple.
>
> > IBM's project structure (what you are editing with the tool) is quite
rigid,
> > if I recall some comments regarding that,
> > and I guess it would not comply even to your requirements in this mail.
>
> > I haven't used Lomboz in more than a year now, but still I see people
> > complaining about an overwhelming
> > amount of bugs which suggest, that the entire Lomboz codebase is crap as
far
> > as code quality is concerned.
> > No sane person would try to maintain that codebase, I think, since
rewriting
> > from scratch with additional features
> > in mind would probably be easier than get anything error-free and
> > maintainable out of the current state of the Lomboz
> > codebase.
>
> > Therefore it is not the situation you describe as taking a codebase and
> > consider that 80%.
> > Whichever codebase is chosen, there would be great amounts of work done
on
> > that, and that
> > needs an ably led project team, rules in place to ensure code quality,
and
> > the other usual things
> > which a project needs if it is to be completed successfully, and not to
be
> > degrading into chaos and anarchy.
>
> > The project is in this phase now. I agree, that it is getting long as
hell,
> > but still it is necessary. At least things now
> > start moving, in contrast to what has (or actually has not) been
happening a
> > couple of months before.
>
> > Hopefully we will get some stuff out of it quite soon.
>
> > Also do remember, that the aim of the Web tools project is to be a Web
Tools
> > project, and not a Servlet+Struts+EJB Tools project,
> > what the current state of the Lomboz project is, and the current state
of
> > the IBM project is, aside of the web-service and DB tools
> > in it.
> > I don't mean to belittle IBM's contributions, but what I got from its
> > description document, it lacks a number of parts of these requirements.
> > Of course I may be mistaken, but I don't know how much support IBM's
current
> > contributions provide e.g. for PHP and PHP project deployment,
> > which also should be supported by this project. I guess probably
nothing.
>
> > That means, that a general-purpose project structure, server and
deployment
> > management framework is to be incorporated. That means
> > design from scratch to be done before fitting in existing contributions.
>
> > I described a general-purpose project and deployment management
structure
> > method in MyEclipse forums, feel free to add your comments to there as
well.
> > I hope something similar (or even the same specification) will be
> > incorporated into the web tools project. The URL is:
> >
http://www.myeclipseide.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file =viewtopic&t=1841
>
> > Do remember however, that I am in no way affiliated with Genuitec guys,
> > except for using their tools, but my opinion is not their opinion, so
don't
> > take
> > anything I say or write there as an opinion of theirs. I just wrote them
> > that specs as a feature or rather enhancement request.
>
> > I will probably also submit that specification part to the webtools
project
> > once that is started up. If I can also submit it now, then please
someone
> > indicate
> > that :-)
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Robert Varga
>
>
>
>
> > "Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:c3jfrh$87u$1@eclipse.org...
> > > This is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
> > >
> > > What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a
competing
> > > product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code
is
> > > accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> > > (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as
well.
> > >
> > > IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated
into
> > > Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related
work.
> > > People are desparately asking for this functionality.
> > >
> > > Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> > > project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the
source
> > > tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> > > requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> > > editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help
at
> > > all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> > > but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> > > building EAR file from the project.
> > >
> > > IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> > > around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> > > before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> > > vested interest in this project not succeeding.
> > >
> > > What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions?
How
> > > many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release
both
> > > and let people vote for what they want.
> > >
> > > It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
> > >
> > > Jonathan Smith
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19175 is a reply to message #19160] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 21:31 |
Lawrence Mandel
Messages: 486
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
>Also do remember, that the aim of the Web tools project is to be a Web
Tools
>project, and not a Servlet+Struts+EJB Tools project,
>what the current state of the Lomboz project is, and the current state of
>the IBM project is, aside of the web-service and DB tools
>in it.
>I don't mean to belittle IBM's contributions, but what I got from its
>description document, it lacks a number of parts of these requirements.
>Of course I may be mistaken, but I don't know how much support IBM's
current
>contributions provide e.g. for PHP and PHP project deployment,
>which also should be supported by this project. I guess probably nothing.
Just wanted to clarify that the project is not looking at an all or
nothing contribution from IBM, Lomboz or any other company. IBM has said
they are ready to make contributions. The Web Tools Project team will have
to decide what to accept from IBM's proposal. It is possible, and likely,
that different parts of this project will be contributed by different
organizations. It follows that contributions can be accepted and the
project can get underway without, for example, a PHP editor. An editor for
PHP, Perl, or any other language or artifact can be added at a later date
either via a contribution or a new component developed from scratch in the
Web Tools Project.
Lawrence Mandel
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19178 is a reply to message #19154] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 21:38 |
Arthur Ryman
Messages: 92
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Jonathan Smith wrote:
> This is ridiculous.
>
> What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
>
> What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
> product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
> accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
>
> IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
> Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
> People are desparately asking for this functionality.
>
> Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
> tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
> all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> building EAR file from the project.
>
> IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> vested interest in this project not succeeding.
>
> What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> and let people vote for what they want.
>
> It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
>
> Jonathan Smith
The status is that ObjectWeb is putting together a proposal to lead the
project. I've reviewed drafts of it and have confirmed IBM's willingness
to contribute code and participate.
The proposal has to be submitted to the eclipse Management Organisation
and reviewed, approved, etc. before eclipse opens up the project to code
contributions.
Concerning the Web project directory structure, WebSphere Studio uses
one that maps to the J2EE directory structure, with the addition of
directories for Java source code, and a builder that knows how to
compile the Java source (e.g. servlets) and move the code to the right
place, e.g. classes, lib, etc. We are open to considering other more
flexible layouts. The one we use now has the advantage that you can
configure a servlet engine like Tomcat to directly use the eclipse
project directory so you don't have to move files, e.g. just edit your
JSP and refresh your browser to get the new version. Of course, you
could also have a builder copy the JSP to the right place after edits.
-- Arthur
|
|
| |
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19184 is a reply to message #19181] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 22:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: nospamplease.dev.null
This thread has a rather negative tone to it, so I'd just like to add that I
appreciate all the hard work I know people are putting into this effort. I
would rather wait for a well-developed proposal and review process to ensure
the highest quality project.
If, in fact, there are conflicts of interests I certainly wouldn't want to
rush the project organization.
I'm in this for the long haul, and I'm not looking for the hot technology du
jour.
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19187 is a reply to message #19184] |
Mon, 22 March 2004 23:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
"Brian DeCamp" <nospamplease@dev.null> wrote in message
news:c3noi7$q3i$1@eclipse.org...
> This thread has a rather negative tone to it, so I'd just like to add that
I
> appreciate all the hard work I know people are putting into this effort. I
> would rather wait for a well-developed proposal and review process to
ensure
> the highest quality project.
>
> If, in fact, there are conflicts of interests I certainly wouldn't want to
> rush the project organization.
>
> I'm in this for the long haul, and I'm not looking for the hot technology
du
> jour.
We're all in it for the long haul. Most of us are interested in the hot
technology du jour, as well, as we also need to get work done today. Think
agile.
Looking over this thread brings up a couple of other comments. A charter
than includes both PHP and J2EE is too broad. The only thing these have in
common is that both work with Apache. Making separate PHP and J2EE webtools
projects (ditto for any other non-J2EE technologies) would accelerate
progress.
I detect a faint whiff of "We're running this, not IBM," in some of the
responses. This should be like any other open source project; them that
contributes the code calls the shots. IBM has a heap of code in this area.
I'm with Jonathan, if they throw any significant portion of that in the pot,
they should go to the head of the table. The last thing we need is a
non-coding committee.
Bob
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19190 is a reply to message #19187] |
Tue, 23 March 2004 00:11 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
I agree with you 100%.
If IBM is trying to prove that by allowing others to lead this project
they are demonstrating that they are not the only one running show in
Eclipse consortium, then, boy, did they choose the wrong project to do it.
Project should be owned by major contributor. Not by non-contributing
architects, who can only see negative aspects of the contributions
thinking they can come up with something better. Well, We as comunity are
not ready to wait for another 2 years to see the fruits of their nirvana
dreams.
Eclipse needs JSP/XML editor NOW.
I want to take a vote on this.
1. IBM should run the project
2. Accept all IBM's contributions and release them as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Jonathan Smith
Bob Foster wrote:
> "Brian DeCamp" <nospamplease@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:c3noi7$q3i$1@eclipse.org...
> > This thread has a rather negative tone to it, so I'd just like to add that
> I
> > appreciate all the hard work I know people are putting into this effort. I
> > would rather wait for a well-developed proposal and review process to
> ensure
> > the highest quality project.
> >
> > If, in fact, there are conflicts of interests I certainly wouldn't want to
> > rush the project organization.
> >
> > I'm in this for the long haul, and I'm not looking for the hot technology
> du
> > jour.
> We're all in it for the long haul. Most of us are interested in the hot
> technology du jour, as well, as we also need to get work done today. Think
> agile.
> Looking over this thread brings up a couple of other comments. A charter
> than includes both PHP and J2EE is too broad. The only thing these have in
> common is that both work with Apache. Making separate PHP and J2EE webtools
> projects (ditto for any other non-J2EE technologies) would accelerate
> progress.
> I detect a faint whiff of "We're running this, not IBM," in some of the
> responses. This should be like any other open source project; them that
> contributes the code calls the shots. IBM has a heap of code in this area.
> I'm with Jonathan, if they throw any significant portion of that in the pot,
> they should go to the head of the table. The last thing we need is a
> non-coding committee.
> Bob
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19193 is a reply to message #19178] |
Tue, 23 March 2004 00:42 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
If IBM is willing, let's start a project on sourceforge. Let's see how
much we can improve it by the time these guys are ready to accept
contributions.
Jonathan Smith
Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > This is ridiculous.
> >
> > What is happening here? This is more political than Bush-Kerry fight.
> >
> > What the hell is MyEclipse doing in this project? They have a competing
> > product that does exactly what this project's goal is. If IBM's code is
> > accepted then there is no reason for MyEclipse to exist as a product
> > (with functionality that is available today) and maybe as company as well.
> >
> > IBM contributions (JSP editor, XML editor, WSDL editor) integrated into
> > Eclipse would make Eclipse an complete IDE for 80% of JAVA related work.
> > People are desparately asking for this functionality.
> >
> > Any attepmt to force a J2EE view e.g. concrete directory structure for
> > project etc. should be hightly discouraged. Any directory in the source
> > tree should be able to be defined as "Web Module". The minimum
> > requirement should be presense of "WEB_INF" in that directory and JSP
> > editor should just work. Dictating directory structure would not help at
> > all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> > but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> > building EAR file from the project.
> >
> > IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> > around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> > before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> > vested interest in this project not succeeding.
> >
> > What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> > many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> > and let people vote for what they want.
> >
> > It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
> >
> > Jonathan Smith
> The status is that ObjectWeb is putting together a proposal to lead the
> project. I've reviewed drafts of it and have confirmed IBM's willingness
> to contribute code and participate.
> The proposal has to be submitted to the eclipse Management Organisation
> and reviewed, approved, etc. before eclipse opens up the project to code
> contributions.
> Concerning the Web project directory structure, WebSphere Studio uses
> one that maps to the J2EE directory structure, with the addition of
> directories for Java source code, and a builder that knows how to
> compile the Java source (e.g. servlets) and move the code to the right
> place, e.g. classes, lib, etc. We are open to considering other more
> flexible layouts. The one we use now has the advantage that you can
> configure a servlet engine like Tomcat to directly use the eclipse
> project directory so you don't have to move files, e.g. just edit your
> JSP and refresh your browser to get the new version. Of course, you
> could also have a builder copy the JSP to the right place after edits.
> -- Arthur
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19202 is a reply to message #19190] |
Tue, 23 March 2004 16:11 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: nospamplease.dev.null
I can't say I disagree with you. IBM has great project methodology, and this
project really should be lead by IBM based on their proposed contributions.
Arthur, why is ObjectWeb the only one proposing to lead the project?
Shouldn't IBM also submit a proposal?
"Jonathan Smith" <jonathansmith@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c3nvaq$1ed$1@eclipse.org...
> I agree with you 100%.
>
> If IBM is trying to prove that by allowing others to lead this project
> they are demonstrating that they are not the only one running show in
> Eclipse consortium, then, boy, did they choose the wrong project to do it.
>
> Project should be owned by major contributor. Not by non-contributing
> architects, who can only see negative aspects of the contributions
> thinking they can come up with something better. Well, We as comunity are
> not ready to wait for another 2 years to see the fruits of their nirvana
> dreams.
>
> Eclipse needs JSP/XML editor NOW.
>
> I want to take a vote on this.
>
> 1. IBM should run the project
> 2. Accept all IBM's contributions and release them as soon as possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan Smith
>
>
> Bob Foster wrote:
>
> > "Brian DeCamp" <nospamplease@dev.null> wrote in message
> > news:c3noi7$q3i$1@eclipse.org...
> > > This thread has a rather negative tone to it, so I'd just like to add
that
> > I
> > > appreciate all the hard work I know people are putting into this
effort. I
> > > would rather wait for a well-developed proposal and review process to
> > ensure
> > > the highest quality project.
> > >
> > > If, in fact, there are conflicts of interests I certainly wouldn't
want to
> > > rush the project organization.
> > >
> > > I'm in this for the long haul, and I'm not looking for the hot
technology
> > du
> > > jour.
>
> > We're all in it for the long haul. Most of us are interested in the hot
> > technology du jour, as well, as we also need to get work done today.
Think
> > agile.
>
> > Looking over this thread brings up a couple of other comments. A charter
> > than includes both PHP and J2EE is too broad. The only thing these have
in
> > common is that both work with Apache. Making separate PHP and J2EE
webtools
> > projects (ditto for any other non-J2EE technologies) would accelerate
> > progress.
>
> > I detect a faint whiff of "We're running this, not IBM," in some of the
> > responses. This should be like any other open source project; them that
> > contributes the code calls the shots. IBM has a heap of code in this
area.
> > I'm with Jonathan, if they throw any significant portion of that in the
pot,
> > they should go to the head of the table. The last thing we need is a
> > non-coding committee.
>
> > Bob
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19204 is a reply to message #19202] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 05:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ed.burnette.REMOVE.THIS.sas.com
I'd like to say a few things about this project. First, there are a number
of reasons this project is still trying to get off the ground. The main
reason, IMO, is Sun's complaint about IBM control of Eclipse. This lead to
a) a reorganization of the Eclipse Foundation to address the complaint and
make it more attractive for Sun to join, and b) a palpable reluctance on
IBM's part to assume even more control of Eclipse by leading any new
projects. The reorganization distracted Board members from this project, and
even now some cite the need to wait until an Executive Director is named
before proceeding. IBM's reluctance to head the project lead to a search to
find a company or organization to both lead the project and contribute
significant resources to it. The full time resources being asked for scared
off most of the would-be leaders.
I believe the second reason is the conflict of interest someone mentioned
earlier. Web Tools caused a great debate about how far this free software
idea should be taken. Some were worried about giving up too much because the
perception was that it would steal away the business for their commercial
offerings. They couldn't see that the softare not only raises the bar, but
it gives you a ladder you can climb to jump over the bar with your own
software by adding to what is provided for free. Both aspects were important
to the Board but early proposals provided only the infrastructure to build
tools with and not the tools themselves. The rejection of those proposals
and restarting of the process set back the project by many months.
At this time, apparently ObjectWeb is the only entity that a) wants to lead
the project, b) is not IBM, c) is willing to assign several full time
people, and d) wants to follow the exemplary tool + framework philosophy.
Personally, I share the impatience of the previous posters. I proposed
making the IBM contribution available as a starting point a long time ago.
You may remember that Eclipse itself had a pretty inflexible project
structure for several releases but that didn't keep people from using it. I
call upon TPTB to stop waiting for the Perfect Storm of leadership,
resources, and philosophy and approve some kind of interim project that can
immediately accept this and other contributions so we can all 'get to work'.
--
Ed Burnette, co-author, Eclipse in Action
www.eclipsepowered.org
|
|
| | |
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19220 is a reply to message #19204] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 15:41 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Jeff.Duska.REMOVE_ME.noaa.gov
I agree with all of Ed comments and wanted to make a few of my own. I'll
try to keep this short.
Here are things that bug me.
- Transparency. If you look at the Eclipse-Dev list archives, you'll see
the discussion is happening on the list. I don't get the feeling that
'real' discussion is happening in this newsgroup. This lack of
communication is the key reason everyone is getting frustrated. I think
a simple progress report at a repeated intervals would . Look at the
planning meeting notes on Eclipse-Dev list for simple example.
- Leadership. I must say that I'm disappointed that we haven't seen any
of the big names step up to the plate here. It shame that so few
companies have contributed back to Eclipse community. I can only think
of a handful, mostly small companies like RedHat, Advanced Systems
Concepts, Genuitec, QNX and MontaVista. Where are the industry leaders
like Oracle or Borland?
- IBM code. The document that Arthur Ryman shows a large code base that
will take a considerable amount of time to get up to speed on. It seems
to me that Ed suggestion of placing some of make sense, just from a
learning curve perspective. I expect the main concern is that it will
become a support headache. I don't see why you couldn't release it in
CVS as unsupported. This would eliminate casual users that could get
lost, but would give the developers a chance to start ramping up. In the
meanwhile, the ObjectWeb folks could work on the proposal. When it is
completed, we all could hit the ground running.
AnyWho...that's my two cents worth.
Jeff Duska
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19230 is a reply to message #19216] |
Wed, 24 March 2004 20:31 |
Rob Dingwell
Messages: 24
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Arthur Ryman wrote:
>
> eclipse is explicitly seeking a non-IBM leader for the project. This
> isn't the only case of that happening. The recent Visual Editor Project
> is another example where IBM had code to contribute, but another company
> became the leader. David Orme of Advanced System Concepts is the project
> lead. See http://www.eclipse.org/vep/
>
> IBM is co-operating with ObjectWeb. IBM is willing to contribute code
> and manpower to an ObjectWeb led project. The decision of what code to
> accept will be made by the normal eclipse review and evaluation process.
> At present, eteration was offered to contribute Lomboz and IBM has
> offered to contribute parts of WebSphere Studio. More contributors may
> emerge.
>
> -- Arthur
I have to say I not sure I really care who leads this effort as long as
they actually lead and get things going. I've been lurking on this list
since it's inception in June of last year, thats right June, and the
only thing that this project has produced thus far is this email list.
What this project is suppose to produce is one of the most sought after
feature requests of the eclipse platform, and although I applaud your
efforts on producing a quality ide/platform that I am very grateful for,
the management of this project has been embarrassingly horrible and some
people should be very ashamed.
Every other month someone would pop into the group and say " Sorry for
the late start but ...... ", so you'll have to excuse me if I sound a
little jaded about the fact that this is going according to the process
in place and were making progress yada , yada, yada ...
What I, and I think most people want to know , even in a general
ballpark sort of way, is the actual time line for a Project Lead, and
code to be released. I also have to say that it's not a comforting
thought that more contributors may emerge, thus pushing the project out
even further as more code has to be evaluated etc...
Again, sorry for the jaded sounding response, but it has been almost a year.
--R
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19247 is a reply to message #19216] |
Thu, 25 March 2004 04:57 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
"Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:c3s6mn$tmr$1@eclipse.org...
> eclipse is explicitly seeking a non-IBM leader for the project. This
> isn't the only case of that happening. The recent Visual Editor Project
> is another example where IBM had code to contribute, but another company
> became the leader. David Orme of Advanced System Concepts is the project
> lead. See http://www.eclipse.org/vep/
>
> IBM is co-operating with ObjectWeb. IBM is willing to contribute code
> and manpower to an ObjectWeb led project.
Ok, if ObjectWeb leadership was annointed by IBM in some smoke-filled room
at EclipseCon, where the heck are they? If anyone from ObjectWeb has posted
to this newsgroup, I haven't seen it. All I've seen is Ed Burnette
soldiering away on a charter; is he just wasting his time? What is the
makeup of this project? How were project members (if there are such things)
selected?
Bob
> The decision of what code to
> accept will be made by the normal eclipse review and evaluation process.
> At present, eteration was offered to contribute Lomboz and IBM has
> offered to contribute parts of WebSphere Studio. More contributors may
> emerge.
>
> -- Arthur
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19291 is a reply to message #19181] |
Thu, 25 March 2004 12:36 |
Naci Dai
Messages: 55
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
As member of the ObjectWeb consortium and lead for the Lomboz project, let
me voice a opinions.
- The only place to host this project is under eclipse.org. No other project
can be the host for a joint effort and gain wide acceptance.
- ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. It has to
make sure that it is taken seriously and supported. This project will have
an impact that is probably more significant than any other eclipse project
before. Eclipse management is aware of this and would not evaluate any
proposal unless it commits significant resources (man - money) to make this
project successful. I agree with that approach.
- IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has resources
that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best, with
no financial return, for two years to develop Lomboz and make it available
for free. It is not WSAD, and despite other opinions many developers use it
and are happy with it. The code is open so you can go have a look at it and
decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely provide an
alternate view to the project. We will also commit any and all parts of
Lomboz to complement the project when it is started.
-We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of the
ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
-Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what we
can call Web Tools v1.0.
-Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
-JSP Editor
-Server Launchers
this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build the
actual tools with much less pressure.
Naci Dai
y structure would not help at
> > all. The tool may have a wizard to create standard example structure,
> > but it shouldn't be enforced. A simple ant task can take care of
> > building EAR file from the project.
> >
> > IBM should take charge of this project and stop the fools from beating
> > around the bush. They are trying to make as much money as possible
> > before IBM's contributions are accepted. People on this project have
> > vested interest in this project not succeeding.
> >
> > What does it mean this project is not ready to accept contributions? How
> > many options do you have? IBM and Lomboz. You know what, release both
> > and let people vote for what they want.
> >
> > It's time that Eclipse had an JSP editor.
> >
> > Jonathan Smith
>
>
> --
> Dave Orme
> Eclipse Visual Editor Project Lead
> Advanced Systems Concepts' Chief Architect
> http://www.swtworkbench.com
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19336 is a reply to message #19291] |
Thu, 25 March 2004 21:26 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: ed.burnette.REMOVE.THIS.sas.com
I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable for many reasons, some of which are
listed below...
"Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
news:c3ujfh$jd8$1@eclipse.org...
> - ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. ...
And has been for quite some time now. That must be *some* proposal. :)
> - IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has
resources
> that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best.
> ... decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
> different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely provide
an
> alternate view to the project.
We need a solid, well engineered, extensible, and proven framework. What's
wrong with WSAD? People like me look at the IBM contribution from WSAD and
say, this is great, why can't we have this today?
As far as all the work that went into lomboz, see
http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html .
> -We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of
the
> ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
Most of those resources put forth are not actually from ObjectWeb - they're
from member companies. I would hope they (and more) would be available
regardless of the leadership. Besides, wouldn't it be better for the
resources to come from the community using the standard open source
meritocracy process instead of inter-company contacts and negotiations? Did
you ask, for example, Bob Foster (XMLBuddy) if he wanted to work on the XML
Editor? No? Why not?
> -Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
> mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what we
> can call Web Tools v1.0.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 1.0, but to me, 6 months sounds
absurd. I've seen the IBM contributions demonstrated and they appear to be
in pretty good shape today (actually, 2 months ago), not 6 months from now.
The only reason you think it will take so long is because of the Lomboz
connection. In my proposal I did not try to integrate Lomboz.
> -Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
> -JSP Editor
> -Server Launchers
> this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
> interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build the
> actual tools with much less pressure.
I hope this is not your 6 months-version 1.0 feature list. If Web Tools is
nothing more than a JSP editor and server launchers, that's a huge scale
back from what the contributions already do. Lomboz already has a JSP editor
and server support and so do some other plug-ins so what would be the point?
The community deserves better, and quicker. The IBM contributions are
terrific. Can we just use those please, and have an early version out, say,
in a week or two? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ready to ship
as a preview with 3.0M9.
|
|
| |
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19428 is a reply to message #19336] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 00:00 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jonathansmith.netscape.net
+1. IBM contributions included by 3.0M9
Regards,
Jonathan Smith
Ed Burnette wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable for many reasons, some of which are
> listed below...
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
> news:c3ujfh$jd8$1@eclipse.org...
> > - ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. ...
> And has been for quite some time now. That must be *some* proposal. :)
> > - IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has
> resources
> > that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best.
> > ... decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
> > different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely provide
> an
> > alternate view to the project.
> We need a solid, well engineered, extensible, and proven framework. What's
> wrong with WSAD? People like me look at the IBM contribution from WSAD and
> say, this is great, why can't we have this today?
> As far as all the work that went into lomboz, see
> http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html .
> > -We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of
> the
> > ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
> Most of those resources put forth are not actually from ObjectWeb - they're
> from member companies. I would hope they (and more) would be available
> regardless of the leadership. Besides, wouldn't it be better for the
> resources to come from the community using the standard open source
> meritocracy process instead of inter-company contacts and negotiations? Did
> you ask, for example, Bob Foster (XMLBuddy) if he wanted to work on the XML
> Editor? No? Why not?
> > -Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
> > mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what we
> > can call Web Tools v1.0.
> I guess it depends on what you mean by 1.0, but to me, 6 months sounds
> absurd. I've seen the IBM contributions demonstrated and they appear to be
> in pretty good shape today (actually, 2 months ago), not 6 months from now.
> The only reason you think it will take so long is because of the Lomboz
> connection. In my proposal I did not try to integrate Lomboz.
> > -Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
> > -JSP Editor
> > -Server Launchers
> > this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
> > interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build the
> > actual tools with much less pressure.
> I hope this is not your 6 months-version 1.0 feature list. If Web Tools is
> nothing more than a JSP editor and server launchers, that's a huge scale
> back from what the contributions already do. Lomboz already has a JSP editor
> and server support and so do some other plug-ins so what would be the point?
> The community deserves better, and quicker. The IBM contributions are
> terrific. Can we just use those please, and have an early version out, say,
> in a week or two? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ready to ship
> as a preview with 3.0M9.
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19474 is a reply to message #19336] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 00:15 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: j_nermut.zzzzzzzzzzzzhotmail.com
+1 on accepting and releasing the IBM contributions *soon*
Ed Burnette wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable for many reasons, some of which are
> listed below...
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
> news:c3ujfh$jd8$1@eclipse.org...
> > - ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. ...
> And has been for quite some time now. That must be *some* proposal. :)
> > - IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has
> resources
> > that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best.
> > ... decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
> > different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely provide
> an
> > alternate view to the project.
> We need a solid, well engineered, extensible, and proven framework. What's
> wrong with WSAD? People like me look at the IBM contribution from WSAD and
> say, this is great, why can't we have this today?
> As far as all the work that went into lomboz, see
> http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html .
> > -We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of
> the
> > ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
> Most of those resources put forth are not actually from ObjectWeb - they're
> from member companies. I would hope they (and more) would be available
> regardless of the leadership. Besides, wouldn't it be better for the
> resources to come from the community using the standard open source
> meritocracy process instead of inter-company contacts and negotiations? Did
> you ask, for example, Bob Foster (XMLBuddy) if he wanted to work on the XML
> Editor? No? Why not?
> > -Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
> > mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what we
> > can call Web Tools v1.0.
> I guess it depends on what you mean by 1.0, but to me, 6 months sounds
> absurd. I've seen the IBM contributions demonstrated and they appear to be
> in pretty good shape today (actually, 2 months ago), not 6 months from now.
> The only reason you think it will take so long is because of the Lomboz
> connection. In my proposal I did not try to integrate Lomboz.
> > -Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
> > -JSP Editor
> > -Server Launchers
> > this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
> > interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build the
> > actual tools with much less pressure.
> I hope this is not your 6 months-version 1.0 feature list. If Web Tools is
> nothing more than a JSP editor and server launchers, that's a huge scale
> back from what the contributions already do. Lomboz already has a JSP editor
> and server support and so do some other plug-ins so what would be the point?
> The community deserves better, and quicker. The IBM contributions are
> terrific. Can we just use those please, and have an early version out, say,
> in a week or two? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ready to ship
> as a preview with 3.0M9.
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19519 is a reply to message #19204] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 01:15 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
+1.
It's a little naive to think IBM can just dump this code into Eclipse
overnight - their EclipseCon presentation suggested phased releases 1 month
apart - some modifications will need to be made to a) remove any WSAD
dependencies and b) come up to the 3.0 level (WSAD is 2.1-based), assuming
no design changes whatever. Of course, this work would be best done by the
original authors/maintainers of the code, but there is probably enough work
to go around.
Having the project fool around with Lomboz when field-tested,
commercial-quality code with the same functionality is available seems
silly. I'm not jumping in to propose XMLBuddy as the webtools solution,
either, even though in some architectural ways (e.g., common code assist
infrastructure supports DTD and multiple schema standards) it is superior
and, at over 80,000 downloads (30,000 since January 1), it is certainly one
of the most popular third-party plugins for Eclipse. The J2EE support in the
IBM offering outweighs all such considerations.
ObjectWeb reportedly got in this game because they were the only ones to
stick up their hands and commit full-time warm bodies to the project. But if
those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of Lomboz
genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back at square
one.
Bob Foster
"Ed Burnette" <ed.burnette@REMOVE.THIS.sas.com> wrote in message
news:c3r6v5$n9j$1@eclipse.org...
> I'd like to say a few things about this project. First, there are a number
> of reasons this project is still trying to get off the ground. The main
> reason, IMO, is Sun's complaint about IBM control of Eclipse. This lead to
> a) a reorganization of the Eclipse Foundation to address the complaint and
> make it more attractive for Sun to join, and b) a palpable reluctance on
> IBM's part to assume even more control of Eclipse by leading any new
> projects. The reorganization distracted Board members from this project,
and
> even now some cite the need to wait until an Executive Director is named
> before proceeding. IBM's reluctance to head the project lead to a search
to
> find a company or organization to both lead the project and contribute
> significant resources to it. The full time resources being asked for
scared
> off most of the would-be leaders.
>
> I believe the second reason is the conflict of interest someone mentioned
> earlier. Web Tools caused a great debate about how far this free software
> idea should be taken. Some were worried about giving up too much because
the
> perception was that it would steal away the business for their commercial
> offerings. They couldn't see that the softare not only raises the bar, but
> it gives you a ladder you can climb to jump over the bar with your own
> software by adding to what is provided for free. Both aspects were
important
> to the Board but early proposals provided only the infrastructure to build
> tools with and not the tools themselves. The rejection of those proposals
> and restarting of the process set back the project by many months.
>
> At this time, apparently ObjectWeb is the only entity that a) wants to
lead
> the project, b) is not IBM, c) is willing to assign several full time
> people, and d) wants to follow the exemplary tool + framework philosophy.
>
> Personally, I share the impatience of the previous posters. I proposed
> making the IBM contribution available as a starting point a long time ago.
> You may remember that Eclipse itself had a pretty inflexible project
> structure for several releases but that didn't keep people from using it.
I
> call upon TPTB to stop waiting for the Perfect Storm of leadership,
> resources, and philosophy and approve some kind of interim project that
can
> immediately accept this and other contributions so we can all 'get to
work'.
>
> --
> Ed Burnette, co-author, Eclipse in Action
> www.eclipsepowered.org
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19564 is a reply to message #19336] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 01:20 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
+1.
It's a little naive to think IBM can just dump this code into Eclipse
overnight - their EclipseCon presentation suggested phased releases 1 month
apart - some modifications will need to be made to a) remove any WSAD
dependencies and b) come up to the 3.0 level (WSAD is 2.1-based), assuming
no design changes whatever. Of course, this work would be best done by the
original authors/maintainers of the code, but there is probably enough work
to go around.
Having the project fool around with Lomboz when field-tested,
commercial-quality code with the same functionality is available seems
silly. I'm not jumping in to propose XMLBuddy as the webtools solution,
either, even though in some architectural ways (e.g., common code assist
infrastructure supports DTD and multiple schema standards) it is superior
and, at over 80,000 downloads (30,000 since January 1), it is certainly one
of the most popular third-party plugins for Eclipse. The J2EE support in the
IBM offering outweighs all such considerations.
ObjectWeb reportedly got in this game because they were the only ones to
stick up their hands and commit full-time warm bodies to the project. But if
those bodies are going to be devoted to ensuring the survival of Lomboz
genes, I'd say it's a waste of time and the project is right back at square
one.
Bob Foster
(Sorry to post this twice. I managed to reply to the wrong message before.)
"Ed Burnette" <ed.burnette@REMOVE.THIS.sas.com> wrote in message
news:c3vigb$t3o$1@eclipse.org...
> I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable for many reasons, some of which are
> listed below...
>
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
> news:c3ujfh$jd8$1@eclipse.org...
> > - ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. ...
>
> And has been for quite some time now. That must be *some* proposal. :)
>
> > - IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has
> resources
> > that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best.
> > ... decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
> > different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely
provide
> an
> > alternate view to the project.
>
> We need a solid, well engineered, extensible, and proven framework. What's
> wrong with WSAD? People like me look at the IBM contribution from WSAD and
> say, this is great, why can't we have this today?
>
> As far as all the work that went into lomboz, see
> http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html .
>
> > -We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of
> the
> > ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
>
> Most of those resources put forth are not actually from ObjectWeb -
they're
> from member companies. I would hope they (and more) would be available
> regardless of the leadership. Besides, wouldn't it be better for the
> resources to come from the community using the standard open source
> meritocracy process instead of inter-company contacts and negotiations?
Did
> you ask, for example, Bob Foster (XMLBuddy) if he wanted to work on the
XML
> Editor? No? Why not?
>
> > -Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
> > mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what
we
> > can call Web Tools v1.0.
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by 1.0, but to me, 6 months sounds
> absurd. I've seen the IBM contributions demonstrated and they appear to be
> in pretty good shape today (actually, 2 months ago), not 6 months from
now.
> The only reason you think it will take so long is because of the Lomboz
> connection. In my proposal I did not try to integrate Lomboz.
>
> > -Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
> > -JSP Editor
> > -Server Launchers
> > this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
> > interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build
the
> > actual tools with much less pressure.
>
> I hope this is not your 6 months-version 1.0 feature list. If Web Tools is
> nothing more than a JSP editor and server launchers, that's a huge scale
> back from what the contributions already do. Lomboz already has a JSP
editor
> and server support and so do some other plug-ins so what would be the
point?
>
> The community deserves better, and quicker. The IBM contributions are
> terrific. Can we just use those please, and have an early version out,
say,
> in a week or two? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ready to ship
> as a preview with 3.0M9.
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Stop the politics and get to work [message #19609 is a reply to message #19336] |
Fri, 26 March 2004 08:54 |
Naci Dai
Messages: 55
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Oh, this is like the wild-west... Exciting :-) Let me rant too...
- Freedom-of-choice - For me and more than 300K developers out there, every
penny invested on Lomboz provided returns. It is doing is job: We are now
talking about Web Tools! Is that money invested in a bad way? Capitalism is
the current conjecture, but hardly the complete reality, not all money is
spent for direct profits. I can assure you even after webtools, we will do
things, which may seem stupid to some, but will continue to do it.
"When I was young I observed that nine out of ten things I did were
failures, so I did ten times more work --Bernard Shaw "
-Corporate Decison Making - I do not know when, and how IBM WSAD
contributions will be released. I am hoping that it will be with ObjectWeb.
However, I am clear about one thing: IBM decision making mechanism does not
include Lomboz. There is more to corporate decision making than renegade,
ranting, evangelism. I would suggest everyone to read the posts from IBM
again, It was very clear to me why, when and how they will contribute. And I
am sure there are many of you who understand large corporations better than
I do.
-My good money - I would use WSAD instead of Lomboz if it was an open-source
choice... When I pay for a tool, WSAD is my choice. Lomboz will continue be
the choice of people who are not keen on subscribing to a non-open source
tool until there is tangible WebTools . I would have more than happy if
others, including Ed or SAS offered an alternative. With corporate might and
resources, I am sure that they can throw their good money on to very good
things.
-Object Web Proposal- Is the only proposal which is not governed by any
major corporate agenda, comes from an open-source community, brings together
SMEs and large corporate entities, and is able to bring together a good
group of contributions. It is not rushed, because there is no reason to
propose something that will not be acceptable. But you can rest assure that
it has been, and is being evaluated.
-Finally - Web tools is not a complicated thing; and it does not have to be
anything coming from Lomboz: Top two requests: JSP editor and server
tooling. Eclipse Editors and Launching, and Debugging support is already in
place. These tools sit on top of them.
After, you can design-analyze-rant-engineer-extend-prove-hack-slash till you
drop. It bugs me to hear white-haired-matrix-architects to keep saying it
must be "designed". I think they need a reload.
Ed's position
> I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable for many reasons, some of which are
> listed below...
> "Naci Dai" <naci.dai@eteration.com> wrote in message
> news:c3ujfh$jd8$1@eclipse.org...
> > - ObjectWeb is in the final stages of submitting its proposal. ...
>
> And has been for quite some time now. That must be *some* proposal. :)
>
> > - IBM contributions (See Arthur's posts) are significant. IBM has
> resources
> > that is much larges in scale to any one of us. We have done our best.
> > ... decide for yourself for the quality. It has been designed with much
> > different criteria than WSAD, so the contribution will definitely
provide
> an
> > alternate view to the project.
>
> We need a solid, well engineered, extensible, and proven framework. What's
> wrong with WSAD? People like me look at the IBM contribution from WSAD and
> say, this is great, why can't we have this today?
>
> As far as all the work that went into lomboz, see
> http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html .
>
> > -We also have committed full-time resources to the project as a part of
> the
> > ObjectWeb proposal along with other companies.
>
> Most of those resources put forth are not actually from ObjectWeb -
they're
> from member companies. I would hope they (and more) would be available
> regardless of the leadership. Besides, wouldn't it be better for the
> resources to come from the community using the standard open source
> meritocracy process instead of inter-company contacts and negotiations?
Did
> you ask, for example, Bob Foster (XMLBuddy) if he wanted to work on the
XML
> Editor? No? Why not?
>
> > -Even if the project was approved today, it will be sometime (at least 6
> > mons) before these tools are redesigned and synchronized to become what
we
> > can call Web Tools v1.0.
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by 1.0, but to me, 6 months sounds
> absurd. I've seen the IBM contributions demonstrated and they appear to be
> in pretty good shape today (actually, 2 months ago), not 6 months from
now.
> The only reason you think it will take so long is because of the Lomboz
> connection. In my proposal I did not try to integrate Lomboz.
>
> > -Finally, what will be a good start to the project will be:
> > -JSP Editor
> > -Server Launchers
> > this would make 90% of the people happy, as they want to use it not
> > interested in building tools on top of it. This will help us go build
the
> > actual tools with much less pressure.
>
> I hope this is not your 6 months-version 1.0 feature list. If Web Tools is
> nothing more than a JSP editor and server launchers, that's a huge scale
> back from what the contributions already do. Lomboz already has a JSP
editor
> and server support and so do some other plug-ins so what would be the
point?
>
> The community deserves better, and quicker. The IBM contributions are
> terrific. Can we just use those please, and have an early version out,
say,
> in a week or two? I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be ready to ship
> as a preview with 3.0M9.
>
>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 22 03:28:22 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.15425 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
