Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam

[Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Sven,

It seems we are not disagreeing.  I understand the history of the oAW brand
issue, and if it becomes an Eclipse brand, we're all set.  Otherwise, we
return to an old discussion about marketing value, commercial vs.
non-commercial, vs. academic, etc. that I'd like to avoid altogether.  Most
contributions at Eclipse have shed their previous branding/identity, by the
way.

Components is the way to go, or whatever we call them based on the ongoing
discussion of project, subproject, component, etc.  What I'm saying mostly
is that they will depend on a common core, from the start.

Regarding product vs. project, if what is used by the end user community is
not built upon an extensible framework that is consumable by the adopter
community, you're not truly living up to the responsibility of being an
Eclipse project. We're not here to simply give away tooling, but to support
the three defined communities.

Best,
Rich


On 4/2/08 11:31 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Rich,
> 
> please find my comments inlined:
> 
>> 
>> I don't have a problem with having components within Amalgam that
>> represent
>> specific workflows with corresponding download configurations.  For
>> example,
>> an oAW component that includes what you list below, or one that
>> covers GMF,
>> Xpand, and QVTO.  However, the brand "oAW" seems to not be the most
>> descriptive (it's quite vague).
> 
> Sure it's not descriptive.
> I don't want to discuss it like that. I think it's clear what it is
> about:
> We've been developing under this brand for several years. At some
> point we started to contribute all our technologies to Eclipse
> Modeling. So now there's only the brand left as well as the mentioned
> integration code and some components wich of course would fit into
> some of our projects (e.g. emft).
> We put a lot of work into the brand and simply don't want to throw it
> away. Instead we want to contribute it to Eclipse Modeling as well.
> It wouldn't be "our" (oAW guys) brand anymore but "ours" (Eclipse
> Modeling Guys) ;-). And of course it won't just consist of the X-Stuff
> from oAW but instead would include GMF, EMF, most of the EMFT
> components as well as UML2. So it's one possible "amalgamation" named
> oAW.
> 
>>  Of course, I can't think of anything more
>> descriptive than perhaps the "X Modeling" configuration (Xpand,
>> Xtend, Xtext
>> ;).  I know Ed is keen on seeing the oAW brand become an Eclipse
>> brand,
>> similar to what Tigerstripe did, afaiu.  In that case, I'm fine with
>> the
>> name within Amalgam.
> 
> I think Tigerstripe really is a product.
> oAW is more like AspectJ which has also been an open-source project
> before it came to Eclipse (if i remember correctly).
> 
>> 
>> 
>> What I don't want are a bunch of contributions that live in
>> isolation and
>> are not consumable by an adopter, or easily separated. Amalgam is not
>> delivering "products," but deliverables that can be consumed by an
>> adopter,
>> while also improving the experience of the end user community.
> 
> Of course, we don't want to see a bunch of contributions livinig in
> isolation, too. The only code really would be the "amalgamation"-code
> already mentioned.
> I don't know what you think what "product" exactly means to you, but
> if you don't want to provide a usable piece of software under Eclipse
> Modeling I'm a bit confused of what amalgamation is really about.
> 
>> 
>> Understandably, I believe in supporting all 3 communities.
>> 
>> So, the approach I'd like to take with Amalgam is to first form the
>> base,
>> allowing for extensions that form a set of preconfigured downloads
>> (oAW
>> being perhaps the first, as you guys are able/willing to contribute).
>> Furthermore, inspired by the release train requirements list, if a
>> project
>> does not conform to the proper UI guidelines and make filtering by
>> way of
>> capabilities possible (for example), they won't be part of Amalgam.
> 
> Again, we really want to provide a good eclipse-ish open-source
> solution for MDD.
> No extra oAW stuff, just a composition of proven Eclipse technology
> and some glue code to improve the user's experience.
> 
> IMHO separate components in Amalgamation would be helpful, because
> then we could have a lead, newsgroup, mailing-list and repository for
> each component. Of course you as the project lead should still keep
> everything in sync, eclipse-ish and the way we all want it to be.
> 
> Sven
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 4/2/08 9:08 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Rich,
>>> 
>>> the code we're talking about is integration code like:
>>> 
>>> - an oAW perspective
>>> - wizards covering several components at once
>>> - cheat sheets and documentation covering the whole stack
>>> 
>>> Would it be possible to have such code in a CVS under amalgamation?
>>> 
>>> Sven
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> As for the remaining glue code, I can't imagine there is much
>>> here.  I'd
>>>> like to see a base set of Modeling glue that can be used by
>>> adopters, with
>>>> perhaps some specific code to accompany each distro.  In the case
>>> of oAW,
>>>> how is it not just a general Modeling collection that favors Xpand
>>> over JET,
>>>> Xtend over ATL, Xtext over TCS, etc.?  As discussed at EclipseCon,
>>> why not a
>>>> general solution that enables/disables capabilities to allow the
>>> user to
>>>> select the tool collection they prefer?  In this way, each distro
>>> may define
>>>> a set of defaults, and perhaps some minimal branding.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> amalgam-dev mailing list
>> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> amalgam-dev mailing list
> amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/amalgam-dev