Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded

[Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

BJ Hargrave wrote on 09/13/2007 03:13:56 PM:

> > Why not reify the structure we think we have?
> 
> I think part of the issue is that there is no common view of the structure
> "we think we have" to reify it.

I agree that there is likely no common view currently.
 That does not mean there cannot be a (reasonably) common view.  That
is the point of this discussion.

My sense is that with the eventual addition of p2
(an obvious component) and further bundles into Bundles, the current "one
size fits all" view will come into question in two ways.  From
the outside -  "why is p2 a component and xxx not" and the
inside - Bundles becomes a big soup.

> >  would the http service be part of
"standard services" or "server side"?
> 
> You totally avoid this question by avoiding arbitrary groupings like
> standard services and server side. 

Completely agree and I much prefer thinking without
boxes.  Especially arbitrary ones.  Please do not confuse my
comments with actually pushing this particular solution. I am exploring
the space and reacting to reports from new folks to the community and people
looking to get involved.  They are confused by the current (lack of)
structure.  They want to know about/get involved in area X but cannot
tell what bundles relate to area X.  As I mentioned before, making
a formal component may not be the best answer.  Then again, at a certain
point there is enough activity/interest/content/infrastruture to tip the
balance and make the "weight" of a component worthwhile.

> Perhaps this whole topic deserves a small slot
on the Equinox Summit 
> agenda?

Sure.  The agenda is a wiki so it can be added
by anyone.  Speaking of which, people should be adding their agenda
items...

Jeff