Hi, I appreciate anyone who would be interested in the project at this early stage, so I welcome your post.
However, when I read your comments, I am guessing you never found the web site. http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee If you did, please let me know what is confusing about it (except perhaps that there is *too much* documentation, planning, and communication, which is probably not possible). At 10:18 AM 2/5/2002 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .... >Tilly's first point (Definition of 'Enterprise') combined with Torvald's >nail hitting comments are without a doubt issues that could make or break >the P5EE effort. I don't think wasting time defining 'Enterprise' will >result in any tangible result. In a recent full day offsite meeting the >group I work with (Enterprise Architecture) we thrashed out goal setting. >After eight ours locked in a hotel room all that could be agreed on was >the need to define 'Enterprise' and define 'Architecture' -- sounds like a >Dilbert strip but it's a true story. We define "Enterprise" and even "Software Architecture". http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/definitions.html The evolving prototype framework in P5EEx::Blue even has documentation (far in advance of the functionality supported by the software). (This is sometimes called Design.) http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/software/htdocs/api/ The description of classes comprises a description of the "Logical Architecture" (Class View) although there are indeed no diagrams. Much about the architecture can be inferred by the "Classes (planned)". The Physical and Deployment Views of architecture are also lacking, but a description of the Platforms to be supported is included (which is related). http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/platform.html I've even started writing a Developer's Guide to explain how the internals work (this is new over the last few days and not even in CVS). http://www.officevision.com/pub/p5ee/software/htdocs/P5EEx/Blue/devguide.html >Most importantly is the confusion I feel at how to get involved with this >project. I've the enthusiasm and basic skills and knowledge, but feel >somewhat clueless as to how to go about contributing besides chewing up >peoples time on this mailing list. I'm more of an integrator than a >coder, and I know there's probably more I could bring to the project than >my coding skills. > >It's easy to see how a coder should jump in, but I'm sure there must be >many other areas a person could be of assistance to a project of this >scale. > >Jeff Bulley I appreciate your desire to contribute. We are kind of at the awkward stage where we all think that a P5EE would be great, but there is not even the kernel of a codebase to rally our discussion around. So all on the list were invited to create prototype code that could be critiqued and debated and form the beginnings of a code base. (Code speaks louder than words.) It seems that my evolving code base is the only prototype anyone has chosen to make known publicly. So until I get to a point where it does something worthwhile, we're all kind of waiting. Then hopefully, there will be enough infrastructure that we can start critiquing, agreeing, and handing out tasks. In the mean time, the list remains a useful place for people to exchange knowledge relevant to the effort. If you are more of an integrator type, stick around a couple of months, and there will hopefully be something for you to do. Stephen
