[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
|
Janet,
No. The oAW folks would like to create an EPP package that's a subset of
the components that Amalgam as a whole will provide, as well as some, what
they're calling "glue" code for integrating other "parts of oAW" that are
currently (and will always be) in other existing projects, e.g., an Eclipse
perspective.
Here's an example of Xpand:
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/m2t/?project=xpand
Notice how the page describes it this way:
Xpand is the code generation language from Open ArchitectureWare (oAW).
One might interpret this as adverstising a commerical brand. So our
collective desire is to see oAW and its existing logos be properly
"registered" as trademarks of the Eclipse foundation so that any mention of
them and use of their logos cannot be intepretted as commerical
advertisement...
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
"Janet Campbell"
<janet.campbell@e
clipse.org> To
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
04/04/2008 08:36 "'Amalgamation project developer
AM mailing list'"
<amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject
RE: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
Amalgam
Hi Ed,
Could you clarify for us - is the proposal to rename the Amalgam project to
OpenArchitectureWare?
Thanks,
Janet
Janet Campbell
Phone: +1.613.224.9461, x.229 (GMT -5)
Fax: +1.613.224.5172
janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Merks [mailto:merks@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:31 AM
To: Amalgamation project developer mailing list
Cc: bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx; Janet Campbell
Subject: Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in Amalgam
Bjorn/Janet,
We're curious what concrete steps need to be taken to ensure that the oAW
brand is contributed to Eclipse as an Eclipse brand, much in the same way
that the tigerstripe commericial brand was donated? Could you guys please
help us with that?
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
Richard Gronback
<richard.gronback
@borland.com> To
Sent by: Amalgamation project developer
amalgam-dev-bounc mailing list
es@xxxxxxxxxxx <amalgam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
04/03/2008 06:59 Subject
AM Re: [amalgam-dev] Re: oAW in
Amalgam
Please respond to
Amalgamation
project developer
mailing list
<amalgam-dev@ecli
pse.org>
Hi Sven,
I guess the next steps are to do whatever is required to resolve the
branding issue, and to provide a patch through Bugzilla for the UI elements
that would be included in the oAW download.
This week I'm looking into build and packaging options, and would also like
to install all of the modeling components and take a close look at the
current state of all our UI elements.
Best,
Rich
On 4/3/08 3:48 AM, "Sven Efftinge" <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> Great!
> oAW has always been highly extensible. It is for example shipped as
> part of MID's Innovator.
> Other product vendors are also working on integrating it. (Ultimately,
> we'ld love to see every development product on this planet having oAW
> integrated :-))
>
> So, do we agree on making oAW an eclipse brand and creating a
> corresponding component (or subproject) under Amalgamation?
> What could be the next step to push this forward?
>
> atb,
> Sven
>
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 17:57 , Richard Gronback wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
