|Going forward, how to handle extensions in a pure e4 app? [message #760669]
||Sat, 03 December 2011 23:19
In 3.x I understand how to define extension points and contribute |
extensions to those points. What I feel I am missing is what is the
model for how to handle this in a pure e4 way? IIRC, defining
extensions the 3.x way will force the use of the compatibility layer.
ATM I don't have a real issue with that, however I still would like to
understand what should be done if you want to go pure e4.
|Re: Going forward, how to handle extensions in a pure e4 app? [message #760705 is a reply to message #760693]
||Sun, 04 December 2011 09:06
On 12/4/2011 4:06 AM, Tom Schindl wrote:|
> Why do you think that if you declare your own extension points you use
> the compat layer? Extension points are an Equinox concept and you are
> free to use it in pure e4. Having said that I though would advise you to
> look at Declarative Services as a way to contribute.
Looking back I see I tied the discussion from the "Pure e4 Application
with old UI extensions" newsgroup thread to the use of the compat.
layer. Now as for DS, there is definitely some overlap between what the
registry does and what DS provides. And in some cases it comes down to
6 of 1 and half a dozen of another where it is just the developer's
preference. However, as an e4 best practice, eclipse should be leading
as to which way we should go. That way most devs will have the same
model making integration easier.
Also IIRC DS is not usable for extensions that are data based like help
content plug-ins. A dev could define an interface that provides all the
info, and put implementations into DS, but it seems overkill in relation
to just using the registry.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.02347 seconds