|Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #173714 is a reply to message #173390]
||Sun, 09 July 2006 22:29
| David Williams
Registered: July 2009
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:13:30 -0400, Michael Giroux |
> Should these new logging plugins be used by other plugins that wish to
> generate logs other than .metadata/.log?
Michael, we didn't really plan on that, so, if you need that, or want to
for that, a feature request and/or contribution would be in order.
We made these "common" plugins because some other third party code
required them, and
we noticed several Callisto projects were doing the same thing, so, we
didn't want to
"ship" multiple copies.
I don't know what "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy" really means. Is it obvious to you
value it should have for these bundles? Is it obvious to you what its
|Re: New Logging Plugins question [message #174385 is a reply to message #173831]
||Thu, 13 July 2006 10:11
| Chris Brealey
Registered: July 2009
The "buddy policy" is like an inverted plugin dependency. As you wrote, it would|
in this case enable the third party plugins' class loaders to load classes from
upstream plugins, and is particularly useful for third-party code that doesn't
know a thing about Eclipse extension points. We should be registering these
third party plugins so that upstream plugins can declare themselves as loadable
from the context of the third party plugins.
The Eclipse Orbit proposal  might be the strategic place to do this, but in
the short term, feel free to open a bug against wst.ws  for us to add an
"Eclipse-BuddyPolicy: registered" to our third party plugins.
Thanks - CB.
Michael Giroux wrote:
> "David Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> > We made these "common" plugins because some other third party code
> > required them, and
> > we noticed several Callisto projects were doing the same thing, so, we
> > didn't want to "ship" multiple copies.
> OK, thanks.
> > I don't know what "Eclipse-BuddyPolicy" really means. Is it obvious to you
> > what value it should have for these bundles? Is it obvious to you what
> > its benifit is?
> I'm not sure either. It seems to allow the classloader to find classes in
> other plugins even if the plugins are not referenced in the plugin.xml.
> For example, LOG4J properties configure the class name of an appender. Of
> course, there is no way at the time LOG4J plugin is built to know the names
> of all the plugins that might need to use it, so it would use
> Eclipse-BuddyPolicy to specify "registered". There is more on this at
> http://www.eclipsezone.com/articles/franey-logging/?source=a rchives.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01812 seconds