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
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
