You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> on 2005/08/23 05:24:49 UTC
[discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
So we now have a subproject policy.
Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so if
anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or
another PMC member.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
the patch delay today is my fault. I was buried in meetings all day.
I'm trying to get to it now...
But, yes, I agree with you, obviously - I just wanted to give Sachin
hope about his patches.
geir
On Aug 23, 2005, at 8:19 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I think we should make a tools subdirectory with eclipse as its
> first member and give at least sachin commit for it. AFAICT no one
> is keeping up with his patch stream. I think the intent should be
> for separate release cycle and that we can work out exactly how to
> do that later. I don't want to discourage active participants by a
> long patch delay.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, it certainly can. But one thing we're trying to do is build
>> a like-minded community of tools people. We did something like
>> this very effectively (IMO) at Velocity, making it separate and
>> letting them setup things like web content, build structure,
>> packaging, releases, etc.
>>
>> What's the downside to starting to bucket functionality this way?
>> What bad things could happen if we made a subdirectory for
>> tooling, letting it be a separate build (and release cycle), and
>> having a subpage on the website behind a left-nav item?
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It can go into a tools directory, just like we have a modules
>>> directory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:34 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners
>>>> off". How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in
>>>> Geroniomo? It's for Eclipse, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling,
>>>> and start producing releases independently... I agree that
>>>> Eclipse is too small by itself (as I noted in a previous
>>>> email), but general tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an
>>>> excellent start....
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution
>>>>>>> as a subproject? It's independent, has interested people
>>>>>>> that are annoying us with patches :) adds value to the
>>>>>>> project and grows the community in a technically diverse
>>>>>>> way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code
>>>>>>> from sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the
>>>>>>> subproject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person
>>>>>>> involved, so if anyone has any issues that need to be
>>>>>>> discussed confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>>>>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>>>>>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if
>>>>>> it builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the
>>>>>> sandbox is appropriate place to incubate the code and
>>>>>> community. We need to be careful when creating
>>>>>> subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of abandoned
>>>>>> codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for the
>>>>>> eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out
>>>>>> there and we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a
>>>>> full fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox
>>>>> with the idea that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I think we should make a tools subdirectory with eclipse as its first
member and give at least sachin commit for it. AFAICT no one is
keeping up with his patch stream. I think the intent should be for
separate release cycle and that we can work out exactly how to do that
later. I don't want to discourage active participants by a long patch
delay.
thanks
david jencks
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:56 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Yes, it certainly can. But one thing we're trying to do is build a
> like-minded community of tools people. We did something like this
> very effectively (IMO) at Velocity, making it separate and letting
> them setup things like web content, build structure, packaging,
> releases, etc.
>
> What's the downside to starting to bucket functionality this way?
> What bad things could happen if we made a subdirectory for tooling,
> letting it be a separate build (and release cycle), and having a
> subpage on the website behind a left-nav item?
>
> geir
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> It can go into a tools directory, just like we have a modules
>> directory.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:34 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners off".
>>> How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in Geroniomo?
>>> It's for Eclipse, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling, and
>>> start producing releases independently... I agree that Eclipse is
>>> too small by itself (as I noted in a previous email), but general
>>> tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an excellent start....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>>>>>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>>>>>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows
>>>>>> the community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible
>>>>>> roadmap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code
>>>>>> from sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the
>>>>>> subproject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved,
>>>>>> so if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed
>>>>>> confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>>>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>>>>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
>>>>> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
>>>>> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to
>>>>> be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with
>>>>> lots of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly
>>>>> for the eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are
>>>>> out there and we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a full
>>>> fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with the idea
>>>> that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
NM, I changed my mind. I guess this will be the same as when we get the
CORBA donation. It makes sense to me in that there is a reasonable
expectation that this will be a vibrant sub-project and if it's not, we
can just pull it in.
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:56 PM:
> Yes, it certainly can. But one thing we're trying to do is build a
> like-minded community of tools people. We did something like this
> very effectively (IMO) at Velocity, making it separate and letting
> them setup things like web content, build structure, packaging,
> releases, etc.
>
> What's the downside to starting to bucket functionality this way?
> What bad things could happen if we made a subdirectory for tooling,
> letting it be a separate build (and release cycle), and having a
> subpage on the website behind a left-nav item?
>
> geir
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> It can go into a tools directory, just like we have a modules
>> directory.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:34 PM:
>>
>>
>>> Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners
>>> off". How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in
>>> Geroniomo? It's for Eclipse, isn't it?
>>>
>>> I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling, and
>>> start producing releases independently... I agree that Eclipse is
>>> too small by itself (as I noted in a previous email), but general
>>> tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an excellent start....
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as
>>>>>> a subproject? It's independent, has interested people that
>>>>>> are annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and
>>>>>> grows the community in a technically diverse way, and has a
>>>>>> plausible roadmap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code
>>>>>> from sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the
>>>>>> subproject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved,
>>>>>> so if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed
>>>>>> confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>>>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>>>>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if
>>>>> it builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox
>>>>> is appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We
>>>>> need to be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end
>>>>> up with lots of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will
>>>>> happen quickly for the eclipse plugin given how many eclipse
>>>>> users there are out there and we will be better off for waiting
>>>>> a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a
>>>> full fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with
>>>> the idea that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Yes, it certainly can. But one thing we're trying to do is build a
like-minded community of tools people. We did something like this
very effectively (IMO) at Velocity, making it separate and letting
them setup things like web content, build structure, packaging,
releases, etc.
What's the downside to starting to bucket functionality this way?
What bad things could happen if we made a subdirectory for tooling,
letting it be a separate build (and release cycle), and having a
subpage on the website behind a left-nav item?
geir
On Aug 23, 2005, at 7:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> It can go into a tools directory, just like we have a modules
> directory.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:34 PM:
>
>
>> Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners
>> off". How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in
>> Geroniomo? It's for Eclipse, isn't it?
>>
>> I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling, and
>> start producing releases independently... I agree that Eclipse
>> is too small by itself (as I noted in a previous email), but
>> general tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an excellent
>> start....
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as
>>>>> a subproject? It's independent, has interested people that
>>>>> are annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and
>>>>> grows the community in a technically diverse way, and has a
>>>>> plausible roadmap.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code
>>>>> from sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the
>>>>> subproject.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person
>>>>> involved, so if anyone has any issues that need to be
>>>>> discussed confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>>>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if
>>>> it builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the
>>>> sandbox is appropriate place to incubate the code and
>>>> community. We need to be careful when creating subprojects,
>>>> so we don't end up with lots of abandoned codebases. I
>>>> guessing this will happen quickly for the eclipse plugin given
>>>> how many eclipse users there are out there and we will be
>>>> better off for waiting a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a
>>> full fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with
>>> the idea that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
It can go into a tools directory, just like we have a modules directory.
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 4:34 PM:
> Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners off".
> How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in Geroniomo? It's
> for Eclipse, isn't it?
>
> I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling, and
> start producing releases independently... I agree that Eclipse is
> too small by itself (as I noted in a previous email), but general
> tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an excellent start....
>
> geir
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>>>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>>>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows
>>>> the community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible
>>>> roadmap.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>>>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>>>
>>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved,
>>>> so if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed
>>>> confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
>>> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
>>> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to
>>> be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots
>>> of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for
>>> the eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out
>>> there and we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a full
>> fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with the idea
>> that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Tooling is one of our major initiatives to "knock the corners off".
How do you integrate an eclipse plug in directly in Geroniomo? It's
for Eclipse, isn't it?
I think it just makes sense to have a subproject on tooling, and
start producing releases independently... I agree that Eclipse is
too small by itself (as I noted in a previous email), but general
tool isn't, and the eclipse plug in is an excellent start....
geir
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
>
>
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows
>>> the community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible
>>> roadmap.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code
>>> from sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the
>>> subproject.
>>>
>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved,
>>> so if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed
>>> confidentially, please feel free to post to
>>> pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me or another PMC member.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
>> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
>> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to
>> be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with
>> lots of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly
>> for the eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out
>> there and we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>>
>
>
> I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a full
> fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with the idea
> that it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 8/22/2005 9:14 PM:
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>
>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
>> community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>>
>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>
>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>> or another PMC member.
>
>
> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to be
> careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of
> abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for the
> eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out there and
> we will be better off for waiting a bit.
I agree. I think that this is a bit premature to make this a full
fledged subproject. This should start in the sandbox with the idea that
it be integrated directly into Geronimo.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
These are all good things to have. I'm not sure that they warrant a
sub-project status. Let us start the work and see what the interest
is. On that happy day when millions of users find it awkward to work
within our top project framework, we can spawn the sub-project. :)
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 8/23/2005 6:07 AM:
> I thought about this for a sec, and I realized that because I
> sometimes think "general" and usual write "local", there's a
> misunderstanding... Sorry.
>
> I really mean to have a "tooling sub-project" and bring Eclipse into
> it. Our requirements - the charter we'd give it - would include it
> being general - that we would set it up so that other tools could
> join or be created (hint hint... IDEA and NetBeans... hint hint... )
> and fit as peers to the Eclipse tooling....
>
> Does that help?
>
> geir
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
>>> community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>>
>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>>> or another PMC member.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
>> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
>> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to
>> be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots
>> of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for the
>> eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out there and
>> we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I thought about this for a sec, and I realized that because I
sometimes think "general" and usual write "local", there's a
misunderstanding... Sorry.
I really mean to have a "tooling sub-project" and bring Eclipse into
it. Our requirements - the charter we'd give it - would include it
being general - that we would set it up so that other tools could
join or be created (hint hint... IDEA and NetBeans... hint hint... )
and fit as peers to the Eclipse tooling....
Does that help?
geir
On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>
>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows
>> the community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible
>> roadmap.
>>
>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>
>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>> or another PMC member.
>>
>
> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to
> be careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots
> of abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for
> the eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out there
> and we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>
> -dain
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 23, 2005, at 5:38 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> Keep in mind that the tooling contribution was originially part of
> the Eclipse WTP code base and an Eclipse community had already
> started to build around it. Due to the migration over to Apache,
> that code in the Eclipse WTP stream is old, and new features and
> fixes have essentially stopped. So there is some urgency around
> this that we start moving the interested eclipse community over to
> Geronimo as quickly as possible and claim that Apache is fully
> behind providing WTP based tooling for Geronimo. I've gotton many
> requests already where people should start downloading builds and
> open defects and with no where to really point them. We are
> already in M5, so how long do we want to wait? I'll start looking
> into the build process, but we atleast need to post downloadable
> images on the Apache site even if this is decided to stay in the
> sandbox for now. Is that resonable?
This is exactly the kind of interest I'm looking for. Can you
redirect some those requests to the dev list so everyone can see them?
As for posting some binaries of the plugin, that is fine with me. We
post nightly builds and snapshots all the time.
-dain
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
Keep in mind that the tooling contribution was originially part of the
Eclipse WTP code base and an Eclipse community had already started to
build around it. Due to the migration over to Apache, that code in the
Eclipse WTP stream is old, and new features and fixes have essentially
stopped. So there is some urgency around this that we start moving the
interested eclipse community over to Geronimo as quickly as possible and
claim that Apache is fully behind providing WTP based tooling for
Geronimo. I've gotton many requests already where people should start
downloading builds and open defects and with no where to really point
them. We are already in M5, so how long do we want to wait? I'll start
looking into the build process, but we atleast need to post downloadable
images on the Apache site even if this is decided to stay in the sandbox
for now. Is that resonable?
Sachin.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>
>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
>> community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>>
>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>
>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>> or another PMC member.
>
> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
> builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
> appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to be
> careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of
> abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for the
> eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out there and
> we will be better off for waiting a bit.
>
> -dain
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
And here is an developer works article on building eclipse plugins with
Maven....
https://www6.software.ibm.com/developerworks/education/os-mavenecl/index.html
At the end they note the issue of non-jar dependencies.
Sachin Patel wrote:
> Actually the many of the ant scripts are automatically created for you
> and shouldn't require any tweaking...
>
> Here is a good eclipse article on the recommended way to set up a
> build enviornment using the PDE builder.
>
> http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-PDE-Automation/automation.html
>
> By using maven, we're just respecifying all the info thats contained
> in the plugin.xml for a given plugin, plus all the other goals to be
> able to package the plugin as a deployable feature. So esentially
> more work will go into building with Maven, then using PDE. So my big
> concern is that we're wanting to use maven, just because everything
> else is using maven. If we're respecifying all these things, like
> dependences, new goals, etc.... plus you still have to manually
> download Eclipse, WTP, EMF and point to an Eclipse install to build,
> what is the advantage of using Maven? One of the big advantages is
> how maven can automatically pull down dependencies, and this feature
> cannot be exploited.
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Wow! I can't believe Eclipse got this so wrong. Requiring a
>> generated ant script to build is a red flag to me. Anyway, I'm
>> going to try to get the maven guys to comment.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>> So as far as building is concerned, you're right, I took a quick
>>> glance at the mevenide plugin scripts and they are building purely
>>> with Maven. I'm still trying to understand the Maven build process
>>> but looking at these project.xml' files it doesn't look like their
>>> dependent on the Eclipse PDE builder, and they have the ability to
>>> not only compile, but to package and create both plugins and their
>>> features, as well as the jars for an update site.
>>>
>>> But....
>>>
>>> One of my original concerns was that plugin dependencies from
>>> Eclipse cannot be downloaded individually. Eclipse packages and
>>> makes available for download only full bundles of plugins/features,
>>> such as the Eclipse platform itself, WTP (comes in two parts), EMF,
>>> etc... The mavenide plugin doesn't have a solution for this, as
>>> they require you to point to a full Eclipse install that contains
>>> all your required plugins.
>>> maven -Declipse.home=<path_to_eclipse> mevenide-eclipse:build
>>>
>>> The second issue that Mevenide doesn't have an issue with, but the
>>> Geronimo plugins do is the type of dependencies that are needed. In
>>> Eclipse 3.1 plugins can be packaged as jars. So as long as your
>>> dependencies are on plugins that have been packaged as jars,
>>> dependencies can easily be defined like below... and this is so the
>>> case for Mevenide it looks like.
>>>
>>> dependency>
>>> <groupId>eclipse</groupId>
>>> <artifactId>eclipse-jdt</artifactId>
>>> <version>3.1.0</version>
>>> <type>jar</type>
>>> <url>http://eclipse.org/</url>
>>> <jar>org.eclipse.jdt.ui_3.1.0.jar</jar>
>>> </dependency>
>>>
>>> The problem is that not all of the Eclipse projects have fully
>>> converted their plugins to jars and they remain exploded
>>> directories containing "N" number of runtime jars. This is
>>> problematic since plugins have dependencies on other plugins, not
>>> their individual jars. So for those plugins that we depend on that
>>> are not jars, we have then have to be fully aware of their runtime
>>> jars and the paths and names of those jars, and have them hard
>>> coded in the dependency list. Where all you have to define in your
>>> plugin.xml file for the PDE builder is the plugin, not which jars
>>> it contains.
>>>
>>> So it looks like they've created quite of bit of infrastructure
>>> that has been created for including some jelly files as well. Alot
>>> of this may be reusable, but we definateley would need some kind of
>>> way for taking care of dependencies that are exploded plugins. I'm
>>> gonna dig in some more and see what I can get started, but I may
>>> need some help on getting this going. I can provide you with
>>> answers to Eclipse questions and you guys can help with my Maven
>>> questions and togather hopefully we can get this thing building
>>> from the command line.
>>>
>>> QUESTION: So this will take some amount of work, do you all feel
>>> that building purely with Maven is the best approach or should we
>>> just take advantage of the eclipse PDE builder since Eclipse has to
>>> be downloaded regardless and launch the headless PDE builder within
>>> Maven????
>>>
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> I created an eclipse-plugin component is jira.
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The
>>>>> server tooling area is already an established area, especially
>>>>> in commercial tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and
>>>>> Rational Application Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other
>>>>> participants are actively involved in the WTP effort in which
>>>>> the goal is to provide tooling support for J2EE and other
>>>>> application servers that not only provides a strong set of J2EE
>>>>> functionality but is also a completely extendable framework. We
>>>>> need to avoid two parallel efforts here in our tooling support
>>>>> for Geronimo but rather build and leverage these frameworks and
>>>>> projects that have been accepted and established already in the
>>>>> open source community, and use this as our starting blueprint.
>>>>> If and when this is an Apache subproject, its critical that the
>>>>> Eclipse and Apache communities communicate and work together.
>>>>> So my opinion is that we don't need to be re-inventing the wheel
>>>>> here, but keep our roadmap and requirements focused on providing
>>>>> the Geronimo specific pieces that integrate nicely with WTP. So
>>>>> what the community wants for J2EE and server tooling is
>>>>> constantly being discussed in the Eclipse community, we just
>>>>> need to start getting involved in those discussions and bring
>>>>> forth feature requests to them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sachin.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
Actually the many of the ant scripts are automatically created for you
and shouldn't require any tweaking...
Here is a good eclipse article on the recommended way to set up a build
enviornment using the PDE builder.
http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-PDE-Automation/automation.html
By using maven, we're just respecifying all the info thats contained in
the plugin.xml for a given plugin, plus all the other goals to be able
to package the plugin as a deployable feature. So esentially more work
will go into building with Maven, then using PDE. So my big concern is
that we're wanting to use maven, just because everything else is using
maven. If we're respecifying all these things, like dependences, new
goals, etc.... plus you still have to manually download Eclipse, WTP,
EMF and point to an Eclipse install to build, what is the advantage of
using Maven? One of the big advantages is how maven can automatically
pull down dependencies, and this feature cannot be exploited.
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Wow! I can't believe Eclipse got this so wrong. Requiring a
> generated ant script to build is a red flag to me. Anyway, I'm going
> to try to get the maven guys to comment.
>
> -dain
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>> So as far as building is concerned, you're right, I took a quick
>> glance at the mevenide plugin scripts and they are building purely
>> with Maven. I'm still trying to understand the Maven build process
>> but looking at these project.xml' files it doesn't look like their
>> dependent on the Eclipse PDE builder, and they have the ability to
>> not only compile, but to package and create both plugins and their
>> features, as well as the jars for an update site.
>>
>> But....
>>
>> One of my original concerns was that plugin dependencies from
>> Eclipse cannot be downloaded individually. Eclipse packages and
>> makes available for download only full bundles of plugins/features,
>> such as the Eclipse platform itself, WTP (comes in two parts), EMF,
>> etc... The mavenide plugin doesn't have a solution for this, as they
>> require you to point to a full Eclipse install that contains all
>> your required plugins.
>> maven -Declipse.home=<path_to_eclipse> mevenide-eclipse:build
>>
>> The second issue that Mevenide doesn't have an issue with, but the
>> Geronimo plugins do is the type of dependencies that are needed. In
>> Eclipse 3.1 plugins can be packaged as jars. So as long as your
>> dependencies are on plugins that have been packaged as jars,
>> dependencies can easily be defined like below... and this is so the
>> case for Mevenide it looks like.
>>
>> dependency>
>> <groupId>eclipse</groupId>
>> <artifactId>eclipse-jdt</artifactId>
>> <version>3.1.0</version>
>> <type>jar</type>
>> <url>http://eclipse.org/</url>
>> <jar>org.eclipse.jdt.ui_3.1.0.jar</jar>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> The problem is that not all of the Eclipse projects have fully
>> converted their plugins to jars and they remain exploded directories
>> containing "N" number of runtime jars. This is problematic since
>> plugins have dependencies on other plugins, not their individual
>> jars. So for those plugins that we depend on that are not jars, we
>> have then have to be fully aware of their runtime jars and the paths
>> and names of those jars, and have them hard coded in the dependency
>> list. Where all you have to define in your plugin.xml file for the
>> PDE builder is the plugin, not which jars it contains.
>>
>> So it looks like they've created quite of bit of infrastructure that
>> has been created for including some jelly files as well. Alot of
>> this may be reusable, but we definateley would need some kind of way
>> for taking care of dependencies that are exploded plugins. I'm
>> gonna dig in some more and see what I can get started, but I may
>> need some help on getting this going. I can provide you with
>> answers to Eclipse questions and you guys can help with my Maven
>> questions and togather hopefully we can get this thing building from
>> the command line.
>>
>> QUESTION: So this will take some amount of work, do you all feel
>> that building purely with Maven is the best approach or should we
>> just take advantage of the eclipse PDE builder since Eclipse has to
>> be downloaded regardless and launch the headless PDE builder within
>> Maven????
>>
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I created an eclipse-plugin component is jira.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The
>>>> server tooling area is already an established area, especially in
>>>> commercial tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and
>>>> Rational Application Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other
>>>> participants are actively involved in the WTP effort in which
>>>> the goal is to provide tooling support for J2EE and other
>>>> application servers that not only provides a strong set of J2EE
>>>> functionality but is also a completely extendable framework. We
>>>> need to avoid two parallel efforts here in our tooling support
>>>> for Geronimo but rather build and leverage these frameworks and
>>>> projects that have been accepted and established already in the
>>>> open source community, and use this as our starting blueprint. If
>>>> and when this is an Apache subproject, its critical that the
>>>> Eclipse and Apache communities communicate and work together. So
>>>> my opinion is that we don't need to be re-inventing the wheel
>>>> here, but keep our roadmap and requirements focused on providing
>>>> the Geronimo specific pieces that integrate nicely with WTP. So
>>>> what the community wants for J2EE and server tooling is
>>>> constantly being discussed in the Eclipse community, we just need
>>>> to start getting involved in those discussions and bring forth
>>>> feature requests to them.
>>>>
>>>> Sachin.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Wow! I can't believe Eclipse got this so wrong. Requiring a
generated ant script to build is a red flag to me. Anyway, I'm going
to try to get the maven guys to comment.
-dain
On Aug 23, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> So as far as building is concerned, you're right, I took a quick
> glance at the mevenide plugin scripts and they are building purely
> with Maven. I'm still trying to understand the Maven build process
> but looking at these project.xml' files it doesn't look like their
> dependent on the Eclipse PDE builder, and they have the ability to
> not only compile, but to package and create both plugins and their
> features, as well as the jars for an update site.
>
> But....
>
> One of my original concerns was that plugin dependencies from
> Eclipse cannot be downloaded individually. Eclipse packages and
> makes available for download only full bundles of plugins/features,
> such as the Eclipse platform itself, WTP (comes in two parts), EMF,
> etc... The mavenide plugin doesn't have a solution for this, as
> they require you to point to a full Eclipse install that contains
> all your required plugins.
> maven -Declipse.home=<path_to_eclipse> mevenide-eclipse:build
>
> The second issue that Mevenide doesn't have an issue with, but the
> Geronimo plugins do is the type of dependencies that are needed. In
> Eclipse 3.1 plugins can be packaged as jars. So as long as your
> dependencies are on plugins that have been packaged as jars,
> dependencies can easily be defined like below... and this is so the
> case for Mevenide it looks like.
>
> dependency>
> <groupId>eclipse</groupId>
> <artifactId>eclipse-jdt</artifactId>
> <version>3.1.0</version>
> <type>jar</type>
> <url>http://eclipse.org/</url>
> <jar>org.eclipse.jdt.ui_3.1.0.jar</jar>
> </dependency>
>
> The problem is that not all of the Eclipse projects have fully
> converted their plugins to jars and they remain exploded
> directories containing "N" number of runtime jars. This is
> problematic since plugins have dependencies on other plugins, not
> their individual jars. So for those plugins that we depend on that
> are not jars, we have then have to be fully aware of their runtime
> jars and the paths and names of those jars, and have them hard
> coded in the dependency list. Where all you have to define in your
> plugin.xml file for the PDE builder is the plugin, not which jars
> it contains.
>
> So it looks like they've created quite of bit of infrastructure
> that has been created for including some jelly files as well. Alot
> of this may be reusable, but we definateley would need some kind of
> way for taking care of dependencies that are exploded plugins. I'm
> gonna dig in some more and see what I can get started, but I may
> need some help on getting this going. I can provide you with
> answers to Eclipse questions and you guys can help with my Maven
> questions and togather hopefully we can get this thing building
> from the command line.
>
> QUESTION: So this will take some amount of work, do you all feel
> that building purely with Maven is the best approach or should we
> just take advantage of the eclipse PDE builder since Eclipse has to
> be downloaded regardless and launch the headless PDE builder within
> Maven????
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I created an eclipse-plugin component is jira.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The
>>> server tooling area is already an established area, especially
>>> in commercial tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and
>>> Rational Application Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other
>>> participants are actively involved in the WTP effort in which
>>> the goal is to provide tooling support for J2EE and other
>>> application servers that not only provides a strong set of J2EE
>>> functionality but is also a completely extendable framework. We
>>> need to avoid two parallel efforts here in our tooling support
>>> for Geronimo but rather build and leverage these frameworks and
>>> projects that have been accepted and established already in the
>>> open source community, and use this as our starting blueprint.
>>> If and when this is an Apache subproject, its critical that the
>>> Eclipse and Apache communities communicate and work together.
>>> So my opinion is that we don't need to be re-inventing the wheel
>>> here, but keep our roadmap and requirements focused on providing
>>> the Geronimo specific pieces that integrate nicely with WTP. So
>>> what the community wants for J2EE and server tooling is
>>> constantly being discussed in the Eclipse community, we just
>>> need to start getting involved in those discussions and bring
>>> forth feature requests to them.
>>>
>>> Sachin.
>>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
So as far as building is concerned, you're right, I took a quick glance
at the mevenide plugin scripts and they are building purely with Maven.
I'm still trying to understand the Maven build process but looking at
these project.xml' files it doesn't look like their dependent on the
Eclipse PDE builder, and they have the ability to not only compile, but
to package and create both plugins and their features, as well as the
jars for an update site.
But....
One of my original concerns was that plugin dependencies from Eclipse
cannot be downloaded individually. Eclipse packages and makes available
for download only full bundles of plugins/features, such as the Eclipse
platform itself, WTP (comes in two parts), EMF, etc... The mavenide
plugin doesn't have a solution for this, as they require you to point to
a full Eclipse install that contains all your required plugins.
maven -Declipse.home=<path_to_eclipse> mevenide-eclipse:build
The second issue that Mevenide doesn't have an issue with, but the
Geronimo plugins do is the type of dependencies that are needed. In
Eclipse 3.1 plugins can be packaged as jars. So as long as your
dependencies are on plugins that have been packaged as jars,
dependencies can easily be defined like below... and this is so the case
for Mevenide it looks like.
dependency>
<groupId>eclipse</groupId>
<artifactId>eclipse-jdt</artifactId>
<version>3.1.0</version>
<type>jar</type>
<url>http://eclipse.org/</url>
<jar>org.eclipse.jdt.ui_3.1.0.jar</jar>
</dependency>
The problem is that not all of the Eclipse projects have fully converted
their plugins to jars and they remain exploded directories containing
"N" number of runtime jars. This is problematic since plugins have
dependencies on other plugins, not their individual jars. So for those
plugins that we depend on that are not jars, we have then have to be
fully aware of their runtime jars and the paths and names of those jars,
and have them hard coded in the dependency list. Where all you have to
define in your plugin.xml file for the PDE builder is the plugin, not
which jars it contains.
So it looks like they've created quite of bit of infrastructure that has
been created for including some jelly files as well. Alot of this may
be reusable, but we definateley would need some kind of way for taking
care of dependencies that are exploded plugins. I'm gonna dig in some
more and see what I can get started, but I may need some help on getting
this going. I can provide you with answers to Eclipse questions and
you guys can help with my Maven questions and togather hopefully we can
get this thing building from the command line.
QUESTION: So this will take some amount of work, do you all feel that
building purely with Maven is the best approach or should we just take
advantage of the eclipse PDE builder since Eclipse has to be downloaded
regardless and launch the headless PDE builder within Maven????
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I created an eclipse-plugin component is jira.
>
> -dain
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>> As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The
>> server tooling area is already an established area, especially in
>> commercial tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and Rational
>> Application Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other participants
>> are actively involved in the WTP effort in which the goal is to
>> provide tooling support for J2EE and other application servers that
>> not only provides a strong set of J2EE functionality but is also a
>> completely extendable framework. We need to avoid two parallel
>> efforts here in our tooling support for Geronimo but rather build
>> and leverage these frameworks and projects that have been accepted
>> and established already in the open source community, and use this
>> as our starting blueprint. If and when this is an Apache subproject,
>> its critical that the Eclipse and Apache communities communicate and
>> work together. So my opinion is that we don't need to be
>> re-inventing the wheel here, but keep our roadmap and requirements
>> focused on providing the Geronimo specific pieces that integrate
>> nicely with WTP. So what the community wants for J2EE and server
>> tooling is constantly being discussed in the Eclipse community, we
>> just need to start getting involved in those discussions and bring
>> forth feature requests to them.
>>
>> Sachin.
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
I created an eclipse-plugin component is jira.
-dain
On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:59 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The
> server tooling area is already an established area, especially in
> commercial tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and Rational
> Application Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other participants
> are actively involved in the WTP effort in which the goal is to
> provide tooling support for J2EE and other application servers that
> not only provides a strong set of J2EE functionality but is also a
> completely extendable framework. We need to avoid two parallel
> efforts here in our tooling support for Geronimo but rather build
> and leverage these frameworks and projects that have been accepted
> and established already in the open source community, and use this
> as our starting blueprint. If and when this is an Apache
> subproject, its critical that the Eclipse and Apache communities
> communicate and work together. So my opinion is that we don't need
> to be re-inventing the wheel here, but keep our roadmap and
> requirements focused on providing the Geronimo specific pieces that
> integrate nicely with WTP. So what the community wants for J2EE
> and server tooling is constantly being discussed in the Eclipse
> community, we just need to start getting involved in those
> discussions and bring forth feature requests to them.
>
> Sachin.
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
As far as what users want, let me make a generic statement. The server
tooling area is already an established area, especially in commercial
tools such as WebSphere Application Toolkit and Rational Application
Developer. Now IBM, BEA, and many other participants are actively
involved in the WTP effort in which the goal is to provide tooling
support for J2EE and other application servers that not only provides a
strong set of J2EE functionality but is also a completely extendable
framework. We need to avoid two parallel efforts here in our tooling
support for Geronimo but rather build and leverage these frameworks and
projects that have been accepted and established already in the open
source community, and use this as our starting blueprint. If and when
this is an Apache subproject, its critical that the Eclipse and Apache
communities communicate and work together. So my opinion is that we
don't need to be re-inventing the wheel here, but keep our roadmap and
requirements focused on providing the Geronimo specific pieces that
integrate nicely with WTP. So what the community wants for J2EE and
server tooling is constantly being discussed in the Eclipse community,
we just need to start getting involved in those discussions and bring
forth feature requests to them.
Sachin.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
>>> community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>>>
>>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>>
>>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>>> or another PMC member.
>>>
>>
>> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
>> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
>> builds, or is what users want.
>
> Maybe we should hear from people who know the space then. I hear
> that a few people use Eclipse :)
>
>> For now, I think the sandbox is appropriate place to incubate the
>> code and community. We need to be careful when creating
>> subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of abandoned codebases.
>
> I think we'd just dump them if work stopped, just like we do with
> other code.
>
>> I guessing this will happen quickly for the eclipse plugin given
>> how many eclipse users there are out there and we will be better off
>> for waiting a bit.
>
> Why?
>
> geir
>
>>
>> -dain
>>
>>
>
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:14 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> So we now have a subproject policy.
>>
>> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
>> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
>> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows
>> the community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible
>> roadmap.
>>
>> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
>> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>>
>> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
>> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
>> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
>> or another PMC member.
>>
>
> I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
> subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
> builds, or is what users want.
Maybe we should hear from people who know the space then. I hear
that a few people use Eclipse :)
> For now, I think the sandbox is appropriate place to incubate the
> code and community. We need to be careful when creating
> subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of abandoned codebases.
I think we'd just dump them if work stopped, just like we do with
other code.
> I guessing this will happen quickly for the eclipse plugin given
> how many eclipse users there are out there and we will be better
> off for waiting a bit.
Why?
geir
>
> -dain
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [discuss] Eclipse as a Geronimo sub-project
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:24 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> So we now have a subproject policy.
>
> Any thoughts on taking the IBM eclipse tooling contribution as a
> subproject? It's independent, has interested people that are
> annoying us with patches :) adds value to the project and grows the
> community in a technically diverse way, and has a plausible roadmap.
>
> I would suggest that if we do so, we'd move the current code from
> sandbox and add Sachin Patel as a committer for the subproject.
>
> This is a sensitive issue because of there's a person involved, so
> if anyone has any issues that need to be discussed confidentially,
> please feel free to post to pmc@geronimo.apache.org, or mail to me
> or another PMC member.
I think it is a bit premature to make this a full fledged
subproject. I personally don't use eclipse so I don't know if it
builds, or is what users want. For now, I think the sandbox is
appropriate place to incubate the code and community. We need to be
careful when creating subprojects, so we don't end up with lots of
abandoned codebases. I guessing this will happen quickly for the
eclipse plugin given how many eclipse users there are out there and
we will be better off for waiting a bit.
-dain