Re: [ve-dev] running sweet

["David J. Orme" <djo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(Further clarification)

I'm sure I confused some folks here because my previous message 
reflected the state things are in today without explaining how things 
will be moving in the future.

So to clarify, the structure that we are proposing to the JFace team 
that we will move to is the following:

The stuff under Sweet is the data binding framework code I have 
contributed.  The stuff under Sweet2 will be the JFace API to the data 
binding framework.

So at the end of the day we will have one merged API capable of 
supporting JFace's customers using the Sweet2 API and capable of 
supporting my current customers.  Of course, this will be a process and 
we won't get there overnight.  But we're excited to move forward with 
this and get this into Eclipse.


Best regards,

Dave Orme

David J. Orme wrote:

> Dr Gili Mendel wrote:
>
> > We have a framework from Dave that does many things in regard to the 
> > binding problem;  it is a stand alone framework.
> > The sweet2 package, is not a framework.  Joe has written it quickly 
> > so that we can iterate on "the meaning of bindings", and be able to 
> > "touch" it from the JFace component model.
> >
> > The effort that we have on the table going forward, is leveraging 
> > Dave's framework using the manner it is used in the examples in the 
> > sweet2 package.
>
>
> This is true as far as it goes.
>
> But to clarify:  I currently have more than 100 users of my 
> framework.  I can't just stop supporting these folks.
>
> Therefore, my framework isn't going to die going forward nor am I 
> retracting it from open-source.  In the end, folks are going to have 
> two APIs to choose from if Gili's JFace binding initiative succeeds.
>
> If people already have JFace code they need to adapt, the JFace 
> initiative will be the right one to use.  If they're writing new code, 
> then they should look at both and see which makes the most sense for 
> them to use.
>
> I obviously have to keep supporting my framework--with the kinds of 
> deployment numbers I have I don't have a choice.  So it's a safe 
> choice.  I suggest that you pick what works best for you.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Orme


--
Objects are here to stay.  http://www.db4o.com

PGP Public Key (for confidential communications):
http://www.coconut-palm-software.com/~djo/public_key.txt