- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
this is eclipse web tools proposal : http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-webtools/index.html
Geunitec is included
Please comment plan ?
regards
Geunitec is included
Please comment plan ?
First, it’s Genuitec. đ
Next, I’ll post the comments made a few months ago by one of our VP’s (who’s on the Eclipse Foundation’s Board of Directors) about the Genuitec relationship to the Web Tools Project (WTP):
From Todd Williams, VP Technology, Genuitec LLC:
Weâre expecting a synergistic relationship between the WebTools Project, Genuitec, and MyEclipse. Genuitec will contribute to the WTP in an effort to ensure that it becomes a high quality source of flexible and extensible web tooling infrastructure. One of the big problems that I have with the proposed IBM contribution is that it is all based on a very rigid project model, which will be completely incompatible with many existing project structures. In fact, when we designed the MyEclipse project model, we looked at WSAD’s and discarded it for precisely this reason. Since then, we’ve been working hard to make our model even more flexible and extensible so that it will be usable by the largest audience.It’s this type of project model flexibility and extensibility that must be part of whatever model is adopted into Eclipse. Remember, Eclipse’s main mission is to provide an interoperable infrastructure that all tools can leverage. The WSAD project model can’t be accepted âas isâ since it does not fulfill this key design objective and would be a step backward for both MyEclipse and others. That said, I should also point out that the MyEclipse project model isn’t good enough either. Collectively, we can do better than any of us can do individually. That’s why we’re all at the Eclipse Foundation to begin with.
Given that the underlying project model must be redesigned, any tools built on top of it will need significant adjustment also. So, while IBM’s proposed contribution is âa solutionâ, if you’re building an end product, it is not âthe solutionâ if you’re building infrastructure. However, please don’t take that comment to imply that the IBM contribution is not valuable, because it certainly is. We just need to design the correct solution for Eclipse first, and then look for contributed code that helps us to realize it faster. Starting with code and working backward will only ensure that Eclipse’s wonder frameworks devolve into a hodge-podge patchwork quilt of whatever contributions could be expediently thrown together and called âgood enoughâ. This can’t be allowed to happen or Eclipse will soon cease to be a compelling platform. Instead, Eclipse must continue to be the best example of a carefully woven tapestry of interoperable frameworks possible. We can only do this by designing first, and that’s one reason the new Eclipse Foundation contains a Requirements Council and Architecture Board to help manage this growth.
I’ll now change topics to how the WTP will impact MyEclipse. The MyEclipse teamâs mission is to integrate, extend, enhance, and productize useful J2EE capabilities as soon as they become available, in any applicable open source projects. At some point in the future, the WTP will be one more high-quality, open source resource for the MyEclipse team to assimilate and extend. As a result of our ongoing involvement within the Eclipse Foundation, the WTP will benefit from Genuitecâs experience in the J2EE tooling space while MyEclipseâs customers will continue to receive the very latest in reliable, supported, and inexpensive J2EE development capabilities built on Eclipse technology.
I’m sorry – I know that is Genuitec, but my left hand is quicker than my favorite right hand
regards
I’m sorry – I know that is Genuitec, but my left hand is quicker than my favorite right hand
I know you knew. That’s why I added the đ at the end. No problem. đ
By the way, did the post above clear up any questions you had regarding MyEclipse and web tools?
