From the perspective of the Eclipse Foundation, what Ian is asking to do here clearly fits within the scope of an incubator. In particular, I agree with Jeff that creating an incubator and allowing experimentation within the scope of Eclipse and the EDP is a far superior solution to github or other places. And as for guaranteed API contract compatibility for all future releases, that is a decision to be made later. It is not a constraint to be imposed before the experimentation even begins. Innovation can’t happen in a straightjacket. If 100% backwards compatibility is a requirement for some, resources will surely appear to make that happen. Mike Milinkovich Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228 Mobile: +1.613.220.3223 mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Bull
Sent: April-05-11 1:49 PM
To: GEF development; Tools PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] [gef-dev] Draw2d/GEF 4.0 On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Team,
I really wanted to send a more detailed response, but before we start anything, we need to know in detail, hopefully already tracked by Bugzilla:
1) All the functional changes being requested that require a GEF 4.0 / Draw2d 4.0.
2) How much of GEF / Draw2d would be expected to change.
3) How the backwards compatibility layer would work.
With regards to (3), again, I wanted to make a complete response, but the expectation is and will be that all existing plugins using 3.x API will be provided a compatibility later to work with GEF 4.0 / Draw2d 4.0. This is the same level of compatibility delivered with the Eclipse Platform for both their 3.0.0 and 4.0.0 releases, I expect no less from GEF / Draw2d. So this is the Chicken-and-egg problem that continues to plague us. We can't start anything until we know 'in detail' how it will work. And we likely won't know much in detail until we start. These are arguably fine criteria for 'shipping' or 'declaring API' -- I say arguably because I think we could argue against these too -- but is it true that these criteria must be met before anybody begins working? This is exactly my reasoning for an incubator. We could set these out as 'must dos' before the incubator is graduated, but let Alexander (and others) experiment in the meantime. David mentioned doing this in a branch, and I'm fine with that too -- although with the foundation's transition to git I think we should likely fork the code and use git instead. All I'm looking for is a tool to let Alexander (and others) experiment with different ideas within the legal (and technical) boundaries of eclipse.org. The messaging I would like to convey to our users is: This is experimental work, and even if it does come to fruition, it likely won't happen for some time. Moreover, we are unlikely to stop shipping the 3.x version of GEF / Draw2d even after the 4.x stuff is generally available. Maybe this sort of experimental development is not easily supported by the Eclipse Development Process and the git-hub mirrors are the recommended approach.
Cheers...
Anthony
Date: 04/05/2011 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [gef-dev] Draw2d/GEF 4.0
Sent by: gef-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
2011/3/22 Alexander Nyßen <alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi all,
I had tried to start a discussion on whether to have a new major version of Draw2d and GEF in 2012 here recently. As there has not been much response yet, let me clarify what I was referring to in detail, because that could probably have been misunderstood.
Sorry for not responding earlier. Don't take that as a sign that I think this is a bad idea. In fact, I think what you are proposing is exactly what we need in GEF!
I haven't looked at the specific API problems you've mentioned below, but an API that doesn't allow GEF to evolve to meet the needs of the current committers (and presumably a portion of the user community) is a problem. Especially if SWT has released new API, some of which we cannot consume with our current design.
While I would thus like to have the chance of adjusting our current API, I see two important arguments that cannot be neglected:
1) we need to provide long-term support for our clients. This implies that - as GEF has been API-stable for quite some time now - we cannot simply come up with a 4.0 revision in 2012 without having announced it in advance and having given our long-term clients the chance to transition to it.
2) we most likely cannot achieve to incorporate all changes in a 6-9 month timeframe, so introducing a 4.0 version as a replacement for 3.7 in 2012 would be no good option from this viewpoint either. Being a replacement, we would have to fix its API again and would - to incorporate all changes - probably have to come up with additional major releases shortly afterwards.
Right, I don't think it makes sense to do all the work in a single 'release'.
Personally, I would follow the same pattern as e4 / Eclipse 4.x. Start the work in an incubator and see how it unfolds. By performing the work in an incubator we are not binding ourselves to any API, we can take advantage of parallel IP, we could break/change some of the existing development methods (release schedules, scm systems, etc...). If the work didn't evolve to a usable state, then we can simply archive it; and if it did reach a level of maturity that we are comfortable supporting, then we could role it into GEF proper.
As I mentioned, this model has worked well for e4/Eclipse 4.x. We've also used this same model in p2.
Unfortunately, we proposed an incubator project [1] last year and it was determined that there is no clear advantage [2,3]. So I'm raising this with the PMC again with a clear question: "We have some existing committers, and possibly new ones (I don't know) who are interested in experimenting with a new GEF API, what is the best way to proceed?"
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Gef/Incubator/Proposal
[2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/tools-pmc/msg01184.html
[3] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/tools-pmc/msg01187.html
Should we simply fork the bundles into a new project and let the committers work there? If we do this in GEF proper what does this portray to our user community (are we saying the work is 'release quality')?
cheers,
ian
Cheers
Alexander
--
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Software-Engineer
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-210
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743
http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen
Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
gef-dev mailing list
gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
|
