Re: [orbit-dev] Interested in Contributing LPG v1.1

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Christian, 

You do NOT have to run this through
the IP process again to contribute it to Orbit.  We will likely have
to do the standard "manual" tracing for some time.

As for naming, I agree that the simple
package name they have used does not seem like a good bundle name.  In
similar cases with which I am familiar people have gone with the project
name (e.g., net.sourceforge...).  As for using "orbit" names,
to date that has not been our approach.  In a sense we are encroaching
on people's namespace but only to the degree that they are not occupying
it.  If they were to start shipping this lib as a bundle and wanting
to call it net.sourceforge.lpg, we would happily adopt their bundling of
the lib.  An alternate viewpoint on using eclipse names is that we
would be taking credit for the work as ours and introducing ambiguity around
the content (e.g., did Eclipse change it somehow or is it the real thing
from the originator?).

So if I am understanding your message
correctly, you are offering to contribute the bundling of lpg and to continuing
maintenance and updating of that library right?

Jeff

Christian Damus/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

11/02/2006 01:17 PM

Please respond to
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[orbit-dev] Interested in Contributing LPG v1.1

Hi, 

The MDT UML2-OCL component (formerly known as EMFT OCL) currently includes
version 1.1 of a parser generator run-time library from the LPG ("LALR
Parser Generator") project at SourceForge, which I would like to contribute
to Orbit.  I know of at least one other Eclipse project in the Europa
group that is interested in using this library. 

I think I understand that, since this library was already approved by EMO
for OCL's 1.0 release, it doesn't need any additional approval for

  1) Contribution to Orbit 
  2) Consumption from Orbit by the OCL project

However, this library was IP-approved before IPzilla was instituted.  Do
I need to run it through that process in order to meet Orbit's traceability
requirements? 

Also, this case touches on some of the bundle-naming concerns mentioned
on the Orbit wiki.  LPG consists of a single package lpg.lpgjavaruntime,
but I think a more appropriate bundle name would be based on the SourceForge
project name:  net.sourceforge.lpg or the Orbit project name:  org.eclipse.orbit.lpg.
 I, personally, prefer the latter because it wouldn't look like I
am assuming somebody else's identity.  Do the current Orbit committers
have a concensus, yet, on the recommended approach? 

More information about the LPG project can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/lpg.

Thanks, 

Christian

---

Christian W. Damus
Component Lead, MDT UML2-OCL
IBM Rational Software_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev