|
| Re: breaking wtp into reusable features [message #156474 is a reply to message #153380] |
Sat, 14 January 2006 04:30   |
 David Williams
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:51:47 -0500, Eugene Kuleshov <eu@md.pp.ru> wrote:=
Eugene, Thanks for your comments.
You would probably enjoy reading
http://www.eclipse.org/webtools/development/arch_and_design/ subsystems/S=
ubsystemsAndFeatures.html
which contains our description of dependancies and how we plan to delive=
r them.
I've commented below in-line, to some of your specifics, but a general c=
omment is that
we are not trying to minimize code, per se ... but provide logical group=
sing of functionality
that will be stable over time.
>
> My first concern is that org.eclipse.wst.common_ui.feature has
> dependency on GEF, which is only needed for graphical XSD editor.
> It will be really nice if we could have XSD editor as a separate
> feature and eliminate GEF dependency for the rest of XML features.
>
I don't think GEF is so big as to be prohibitive (is it?) and we also
like the idea of having "snippets view" being part of common_ui which al=
so pre-req's
GEF. Ideally, anything that pre-req'd some "external" code could pre-req=
it
as an optional component, and then simply not provide that functionality=
if
taht external dependancy was not present (e.g. XSD editor could just
work without a design page). But .... that does take a fair amount of wo=
rk,
and, honestly, is not a high priority for us at the moment. (Feel free t=
o
volunteer some patches :)
Are you just trying to get things reduced as much as possible? Or is the=
re some
"target size" you see required?
>
> It would be also great idea to have an update site where user could
> choose only specific features and not install entire WTP package.
>
Yep, that's mostly the idea ... We'll try to do what we think are the
most desired and conceptually meaningful features, as defined in the
architecture document linked above ... but the update site will be orien=
ted to
"end users". (that is, not each and every feature will be seperately dow=
nloaded).
> Also it seems that org.eclipse.wst.internet.proxy does not really
> belong to WTP and should be available as part of Eclipse platform. I
> think there is an enhancement request for this already.
>
Yes, absolutely everyone agrees this is a good idea ... but ... there's =
some disagreement
about its priority. Put another way, there's some question about the imp=
lications of *not* doing it.
In essence, this is a good "help wanted" item, if there are any socks/pr=
oxy experts out there,
that could do the "port" to base eclipse form, convert base code to use =
it
(in update manager) as well as port the WTP code that uses it [as patche=
s to bugzilla, of course],
and ... and this is the hard part ... provide a comprohensive test suite=
to verify it all works
in a robust way. I know its actually kind of hard to test, because there=
's so many
varieties and technologies of "proxy setups" that are not always easy to=
simulate (well,
as far as I know).
Thanks again,
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02883 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
