Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » B3 » API baseline - relevant for b3
API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488235] Sat, 26 September 2009 10:06 Go to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
have any bearing on b3 ?

(Ability to set API baseline).

- henrik
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488242 is a reply to message #488235] Sat, 26 September 2009 11:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3214
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
> have any bearing on b3 ?
>
> (Ability to set API baseline).
>
Yes, I think it will be relevant.

An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform. The difference is that a TP can be updated several
times during a development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of that cycle and then used as a
verification mechanism to assert that nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace and the TP.

Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to
the TP but more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP, it's OSGi specific. I don't think it
has to be though.

A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while
compiling.

- thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488286 is a reply to message #488242] Sun, 27 September 2009 11:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
materializer that does this?

This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the active
one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the location
of the active TP/AB).

I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and "active
AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.

So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should happen
in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am populating my
workspace using several queries, and I am going to update AB etc.).
Should it popup questions before switching? In headless mode it should
probably just switch if so directed?

I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
preferecens/settings.

- henrik


Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>
>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>
> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>
> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform. The
> difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of that
> cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that nothing
> deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace and the TP.
>
> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that appoints
> a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but more limited
> in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP, it's OSGi
> specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>
> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one time.
> The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>
> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488287 is a reply to message #488286] Sun, 27 September 2009 13:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Henrik,

You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
> materializer that does this?
>
> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
> location of the active TP/AB).
>
> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>
> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>
> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
> preferecens/settings.
>
> - henrik
>
>
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>
>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>
>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>
>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>> and the TP.
>>
>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>
>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>
>> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488300 is a reply to message #488287] Sun, 27 September 2009 16:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3214
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't
an AB just another TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?

- thomas



On 09/27/2009 07:46 PM, Eike Stepper wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
> infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
> this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
> forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
> AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
> were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
> instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
>
>
> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
>> materializer that does this?
>>
>> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
>> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
>> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
>> location of the active TP/AB).
>>
>> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
>> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>>
>> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
>> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
>> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
>> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
>> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>>
>> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
>> preferecens/settings.
>>
>> - henrik
>>
>>
>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>>
>>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>>
>>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>>
>>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>>> and the TP.
>>>
>>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>>
>>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>>
>>> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488301 is a reply to message #488300] Sun, 27 September 2009 16:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper


>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> On 09/27/2009 07:46 PM, Eike Stepper wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>>
>> You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
>> infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
>> this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
>> forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
>> AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
>> were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
>> instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.
>>
>> Cheers
>> /Eike
>>
>> ----
>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>
>>
>>
>> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>>> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
>>> materializer that does this?
>>>
>>> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
>>> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
>>> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
>>> location of the active TP/AB).
>>>
>>> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
>>> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>>>
>>> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
>>> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
>>> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
>>> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
>>> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>>>
>>> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
>>> preferecens/settings.
>>>
>>> - henrik
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>>>
>>>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>>>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>>>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>>>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>>>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>>>> and the TP.
>>>>
>>>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>>>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>>>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>>>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>>>
>>>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>>>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>>>
>>>> - thomas
>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488330 is a reply to message #488301] Mon, 28 September 2009 03:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
- henrik
Eike Stepper wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488398 is a reply to message #488330] Mon, 28 September 2009 10:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I found this one: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=256093

It's about (team-shared) per-project baseline association, which would
fulfill our needs, as well. Please vote for it:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/votes.cgi?action=show_user& ;bug_id=256093#vote_256093

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
> I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
> - henrik
> Eike Stepper wrote:
>> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
>> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
>> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>>
>> Cheers
>> /Eike
>>
>> ----
>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #488409 is a reply to message #488398] Mon, 28 September 2009 10:53 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Thanks for the pointer - voted.
- henrik

Eike Stepper wrote:
> I found this one: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=256093
>
> It's about (team-shared) per-project baseline association, which would
> fulfill our needs, as well. Please vote for it:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/votes.cgi?action=show_user& ;bug_id=256093#vote_256093
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
>
>
> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>> I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
>> - henrik
>> Eike Stepper wrote:
>>> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>>>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>>>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>>>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
>>> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
>>> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> /Eike
>>>
>>> ----
>>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578181 is a reply to message #488235] Sat, 26 September 2009 11:35 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3214
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
> have any bearing on b3 ?
>
> (Ability to set API baseline).
>
Yes, I think it will be relevant.

An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform. The difference is that a TP can be updated several
times during a development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of that cycle and then used as a
verification mechanism to assert that nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace and the TP.

Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to
the TP but more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP, it's OSGi specific. I don't think it
has to be though.

A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while
compiling.

- thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578196 is a reply to message #488242] Sun, 27 September 2009 11:49 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
materializer that does this?

This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the active
one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the location
of the active TP/AB).

I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and "active
AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.

So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should happen
in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am populating my
workspace using several queries, and I am going to update AB etc.).
Should it popup questions before switching? In headless mode it should
probably just switch if so directed?

I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
preferecens/settings.

- henrik


Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>
> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>
>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>
> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>
> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform. The
> difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of that
> cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that nothing
> deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace and the TP.
>
> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that appoints
> a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but more limited
> in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP, it's OSGi
> specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>
> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one time.
> The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>
> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578218 is a reply to message #488286] Sun, 27 September 2009 13:46 Go to previous message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Henrik,

You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
> materializer that does this?
>
> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
> location of the active TP/AB).
>
> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>
> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>
> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
> preferecens/settings.
>
> - henrik
>
>
> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>
>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>
>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>
>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>> and the TP.
>>
>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>
>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>
>> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578233 is a reply to message #488287] Sun, 27 September 2009 16:20 Go to previous message
Thomas Hallgren is currently offline Thomas Hallgren
Messages: 3214
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't
an AB just another TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?

- thomas



On 09/27/2009 07:46 PM, Eike Stepper wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
> infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
> this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
> forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
> AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
> were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
> instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
>
>
> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
>> materializer that does this?
>>
>> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
>> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
>> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
>> location of the active TP/AB).
>>
>> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
>> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>>
>> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
>> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
>> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
>> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
>> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>>
>> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
>> preferecens/settings.
>>
>> - henrik
>>
>>
>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>>
>>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>>
>>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>>
>>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>>> and the TP.
>>>
>>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>>
>>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>>
>>> - thomas
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578258 is a reply to message #488300] Sun, 27 September 2009 16:24 Go to previous message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper


>
> - thomas
>
>
>
> On 09/27/2009 07:46 PM, Eike Stepper wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>>
>> You seem to be pointing to one of the weak areas of the API Tools
>> infrastructure: modularity of the API baseline (AB). I understand that
>> this is not primarily a concern for Buckminster or b3, but maybe in this
>> forum we can gather enough "weight" to convince the API Tools team that
>> AB modularity is not less important than TP modularity. I wonder if they
>> were willing to consider the reuse of the existing TP infrastructure
>> instead of keeping their own, unmodular solution.
>>
>> Cheers
>> /Eike
>>
>> ----
>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>
>>
>>
>> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>>> So, does this require new materializer, or is it the p2 based
>>> materializer that does this?
>>>
>>> This leads to a different question - When materializing to a TP, or a
>>> AB, I assume that the materialization itself does not make it the
>>> active one (unless of course the materialization is performed to the
>>> location of the active TP/AB).
>>>
>>> I can imagine specifying symbolic locations for "active TP", and
>>> "active AB" - but this seems a bit dangerous.
>>>
>>> So, how can these settings be specified? In a query? What should
>>> happen in UI mode? Maybe I don't want to switch at all (I am
>>> populating my workspace using several queries, and I am going to
>>> update AB etc.). Should it popup questions before switching? In
>>> headless mode it should probably just switch if so directed?
>>>
>>> I also think this leads to issues of materializing/provisioning of
>>> preferecens/settings.
>>>
>>> - henrik
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/26/2009 04:06 PM, Henrik Lindberg wrote:
>>>>> Does this issue https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290621
>>>>> have any bearing on b3 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Ability to set API baseline).
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think it will be relevant.
>>>>
>>>> An API baseline (AB for short) is very similar to a target platform.
>>>> The difference is that a TP can be updated several times during a
>>>> development cycle but the AB is often set right at the beginning of
>>>> that cycle and then used as a verification mechanism to assert that
>>>> nothing deviates from that AB. So the AB verifies both the workspace
>>>> and the TP.
>>>>
>>>> Presently, the AB is simply a workspace global named entry that
>>>> appoints a folder with plug-in's in it. Very similar to the TP but
>>>> more limited in how it can be described. And like the current PDE TP,
>>>> it's OSGi specific. I don't think it has to be though.
>>>>
>>>> A workspace can have many AB's but only one is active at any one
>>>> time. The compiler uses both the AB and the TP while compiling.
>>>>
>>>> - thomas
>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #578277 is a reply to message #488301] Mon, 28 September 2009 03:44 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
- henrik
Eike Stepper wrote:
> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #579626 is a reply to message #488330] Mon, 28 September 2009 10:17 Go to previous message
Eike Stepper is currently offline Eike Stepper
Messages: 5480
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I found this one: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=256093

It's about (team-shared) per-project baseline association, which would
fulfill our needs, as well. Please vote for it:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/votes.cgi?action=show_user& ;bug_id=256093#vote_256093

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
> I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
> - henrik
> Eike Stepper wrote:
>> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
>> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
>> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>>
>> Cheers
>> /Eike
>>
>> ----
>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>
Re: API baseline - relevant for b3 [message #579640 is a reply to message #488398] Mon, 28 September 2009 10:53 Go to previous message
Henrik Lindberg is currently offline Henrik Lindberg
Messages: 2498
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Thanks for the pointer - voted.
- henrik

Eike Stepper wrote:
> I found this one: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=256093
>
> It's about (team-shared) per-project baseline association, which would
> fulfill our needs, as well. Please vote for it:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/votes.cgi?action=show_user& ;bug_id=256093#vote_256093
>
> Cheers
> /Eike
>
> ----
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>
>
>
> Henrik Lindberg schrieb:
>> I suggest a bugzilla - gets more attention.
>> - henrik
>> Eike Stepper wrote:
>>> Thomas Hallgren schrieb:
>>>> I agree with Ekie. I just don't understand why two different concepts
>>>> exists that have that much overlap. I.e. Why isn't an AB just another
>>>> TP? Or to rephrase it, why not define an AB by appointing a TP?
>>> Maybe we should include one of the two PDE newsgroups in this discussion
>>> to get their expertise? But which one? Or a bugzilla?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> /Eike
>>>
>>> ----
>>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>>
Previous Topic:Assertions
Next Topic:Schedule for Creation Review
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jul 23 03:58:26 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05608 seconds