| RE: [technology-pmc] Project Proposal: Faceted Project Framework |
|
Abel, Welcome to the discussion. Are you
involved with any projects that might be interested in being part of this
(either as a contributor or as a consumer)? I am in complete agreement that getting
broader adoption requires reaching out to projects and users. I’ve been
doing that for a while now, but it is challenging to talk to other projects
about adoption when the framework is inside WTP. No matter how many times you
say that the framework is generic and is in no way tied to WTP, people just don’t
seem to hear that. Perception is very important. That’s the reason that I
moved forward with proposing an independent project. I believe that it is a
necessary step in order to achieve broader adoption. It is worth for everyone to keep in mind
that this project is in what’s called the pre-proposal stage according to
the Eclipse Development Process (http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#6_2_Project_Lifecycle).
The next step (after the project is declared, but before creation review) is
where the refining of the project proposal and building broader interest takes
place. The project newsgroup gets created after project declaration (end of the
pre-proposal stage) and helps in getting interested parties organized in refining
the proposal and working on the project plan. I hate to be hijacking the
technology-pmc mailing list for this purpose… - Konstantin
From: Abel Muiño
Vizcaino [mailto:amuino@xxxxxxxxx] Sorry for jumping a bit late on the conversation. I've been following the movements to make the faceted framework
independent from WTP. As I understand the project, it provides a common solution for projects
that allow the user to enable/disable some functionality on a project.
Typically, these projects would resort to adding/removing natures through the
contextual menu for the project, which clutters the UI. In this situation, the success (broad adoption) would be a matter of
reaching out to projects and users. Many projects adopting it means that many
users are comfortable with the "new" UI and the concept of facets,
which in turns means that many more projects will be urged by their users to
adopt the framework. Because of this, I agree with Eugine that getting some other projects
involved (or just interested) in the proposal would be a good idea. Another thing to consider is compatibility with older releases of
eclipse. Many projects (specially established ones with large communities) are
committed to provide their work on something other than the bleeding edge
eclipse release... if they are prevented from using the faceted framework
because of this, adoption could slow down. Of course, making the faceted project an integral part of e4 would be the
best option in the future. But I feel that it will depend on how well it does
on the 3.x line. El 14/10/2008, a las 21:29, Konstantin Komissarchik escribió:
This works better once a project is proposed. There is an announcement,
a newsgroup, etc. It should also be noted that there is no requirement in the
Eclipse Development Process that says at least two projects must be involved to
create another project. If it turns out that efforts to spread this technology
beyond WTP fail, then that will be discussed when the exit strategy for this
project from Technology is formulated. Keep in mind that one potential exit
strategy is to get the project folded back into WTP.
I am surprised you say that regarding documentation. There is tutorial,
javadoc and various content in SDK documentation. Have you tried opening bugs
to highlight areas that don't have adequate coverage? I am particularly fond of
patches, btw. Moving this out of WTP will not alter the amount of resources going
towards this framework. There only one committer who works on this code in WTP
right now. Keep in mind that WTP will be the primary consumer of this framework
for the immediate future. It's not like other folks involved with WTP or with
commercial products adopting WTP will let this code rot.
This is addressed in the proposal. Please take another look. The API in
WTP would be preserved by becoming a shell that wraps the framework in its new
location. Existing code will continue to work as before.
I will add a little bit more clarifying text in this regard. There is
an ongoing conversation on the e4 mailing list. If something comes of it, it
might influence future direction for this project, but not necessarily change
any of the immediate plans. _______________________________________________ technology-pmc mailing list |
