> It is about community and clarity for our consumers. I don't see how arbitrary groupings help here. The whole point of the component model is people pick the components they need which is why it is good that people can download bundles individually. Arbitrary groupings would be more interesting perhaps if you actually delivered against the groupings.
> 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. > 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. Perhaps this whole topic deserves a small slot on the Equinox Summit agenda? -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 2007-09-13 09:04 Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded to me it is neither of these options. It is about community and clarity for our consumers. Walking up to Equinox you just have a sea of bundles. Add in the p2 and security stuff and the sea turns into an ocean. Say you hear that Equinox has implementations of some OSGi service specs. If you go to the download page today you have to grovel through spec impls, launchers, random other stuff and cannot tell one from the other. Since there is no particular web/wiki page for people interested in spec implementations, it is hard to build a community around that topic. People interested in contributing to standard spec impls cannot easily find related bugs etc. There is also no clear lead of that community who is plotting the course/planning, coordinating execution, building the community, ... You can replace OSGi service spec with p2, security, ... A number of these issues can be addressed simply by structuring the download site or wiki or... If you address most of them then in effect you have just created a component without actually creating a component. So what are we afraid of? Why not reify the structure we think we have? That begs the question, what is the structure? The challenge is that all partitionings will have problems as different people have different views on the world. would the http service be part of "standard services" or "server side"? However the existance of issues need not stop progress or movement. So this discussion is really about defining that structure. At least thats my view... Jeff BJ Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 05:13 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded What is the point of the proposed change? Tom's mail suggests we subdivide bundles. But in what way? To organize commit rights or bugs in bugzilla? Or both? I guess that is what is not clear. Clarity here will help us evaluate choices. It seems we can easily have M bugzilla components and N commit right sets with M >=N. Right now (for bundles) M and N both equal 1. Are we looking to increase M or N or both? -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: Jeff McAffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 2007-09-12 16:03 Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded yes but under the new plan you pointed out, the commit rights will be managed by groups and groups will have a 1:1 relationship to components and components will have associated leads, bugzilla entries, websites, ... This is alot of infrastructure to put in place for each bundle. We did "bundles" originally because we could not come up with any reasonable partitioning of the space. To date we have gotten away with it because a) the number of bundles in there was relatively low and b) many have very little activity. As Tom points out, this is changing. Our solution space seem to be N bundles => 1 group, N groups or M groups where 1 < M < N. Unfortunately, it is still not clear that there is a reasonable grouping so while (at least to me) M groups feels like a good spot, it will be challenging. Here are some thoughts - "framework" = the framework. This stays unchanged - "standard" = bundles that implement OSGi standard services - "p2" - "security" = if needed - "bundles" = catch all for things that don't fit This is just a stake in the ground. Jeff John Arthorne/Ottawa/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 03:42 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded Since "component" is a confusing term, I should clarify my comments on this. I like the idea of being more fine-grained with Unix groups (CVS commit rights), because I think it encourages new committers. If someone joins the community with a strong interest in a narrow area (such as security or provisioning), but isn't interested in the rest of the framework, they could quickly earn commit rights in that area, without having to give them write access to other code they aren't qualified to maintain (or aren't interested in maintaining). On the question of bugzilla components, I don't particularly care whether we have one or ten - these are fairly easy to change over time as the need arises. John John Arthorne/Ottawa/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 03:24 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded I agree one component per bundle is probably overkill. However, it's not necessarily true that the CVS commit groups match 1-1 with Bugzilla groups. While it's often convenient to do it this way, it's not a constraint that we need to conform to. I should also add that the EMO has a plan under consideration for standardizing the group structure for Unix groups, and part of this work is to facilitate election across multiple groups (see item 6 in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=77092). Essentially, simultaneously nominating an individual for N groups would only require a single election, and a single vote per committer. Just some things to consider... Thomas Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 02:47 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded There are two extreme positions to take. Lump a large number of loosely related deliverables under one component or create a separate component for each and every deliverable. I'm not sure I favor the latter extreme. Currently the Equinox download page allows you to download each bundle individually so each bundle is a separate downloadable item. Creating a separate component for each and every bundle in Equinox may prove to be too much overhead. It is my understanding that in Eclipse typically every bugzilla component has its own set of commit rights in CVS. If we have a very high number of components then we will be holding a very large number of committer elections to get all the committers the access they need :-) I think we a balance and create components as we see fit to split up the different work areas in Equinox instead of creating a component for every bundle. Tom BJ Hargrave---09/12/2007 12:31:35 PM---It would probably be best if each separately downloadable item had its own BJ Hargrave/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 12:30 PM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded It would probably be best if each separately downloadable item had its own component against which people could file bugs. -- BJ Hargrave Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED] office: +1 386 848 1781 mobile: +1 386 848 3788 From: Thomas Watson/Austin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> Date: 2007-09-12 12:34 Subject: Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded For the security stuff I was referring to the security-specific bundles like login (JAAS integration etc.) You are right there is a lot of cross-cutting concerns with the other security related work that will not really fit into any one component. Tom John Arthorne ---09/12/2007 11:25:42 AM---Creating a new component for p2 definitely makes sense to me. I don't know much about the security work, but that may be diffi John Arthorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 11:21 AM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject Re: [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded Creating a new component for p2 definitely makes sense to me. I don't know much about the security work, but that may be difficult to partition into its own component because it's an inherently cross-cutting concern. If there end up being a number of security-specific bundles, it may make sense. Generally speaking, I think more components is a good thing. It's a great way to bring in new committers who may not be able to make the large commitment needed to contribute across a large part of Equinox. John Thomas Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/12/2007 11:42 AM Please respond to Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@eclipse.org> To equinox-dev@eclipse.org cc Subject [equinox-dev] Equinox->Bundles component is getting crowded The Equinox project continues to grow with new components and new contributes being added. Thanks everyone!! As new contributions are graduated into Equinox proper we need to place them under one of the existing components. Currently we have the "Framework" and "Bundles" components for Equinox proper in bugzilla/cvs. A large majority of the new contributions will fall into the "Bundles" component. For example, we have a few work areas in the equinox incubator which are very active (e.g. p2, security etc). Once this work graduates it will likely to be placed into the generic "Bundles" component. This will make an already crowded component even more crowded. Should we consider creating a more diverse set of components for the work which is graduated into Equinox? I think the p2 and security work will deserve their own component when they graduate. Thoughts? Tom _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev (See attached file: pic01850.gif) _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev _______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
<<attachment: pic01850.gif>>
_______________________________________________ equinox-dev mailing list equinox-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
