Home » Archived » Buckminster » Target Platform and buckminster-headless: update, multiple with same name, rmtarget
Target Platform and buckminster-headless: update, multiple with same name, rmtarget [message #516749] |
Wed, 24 February 2010 18:59  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
I have the following questions about eclipse targets and
buckminster-headless (example, please see below)
1. If I update my.target in my Eclipse project do I have to _reimport_
this into my headless bucky ? (or do i only have to do it once and later
it is dome automatically ?)
2. Up to now I reimported my.target always after modification into
headless bucky. However this leads to multiple copies with the same name
(!) which is irritating IMO.. BTW. where are they stored.
Can I avoid the reimport step and what can I do againt the growing
number of nameequal entries ?
3. there is importtarget, lstargets, but no rmtarget "name".
Why ? is it not usefull ?
thanks,
Bernhard.
!ENTRY org.eclipse.buckminster.core 0 293 2010-02-25 00:31:57.750
!MESSAGE Target platform provided by class
org.eclipse.buckminster.pde.internal.PDETargetPlatform
Target platform provided by class
org.eclipse.buckminster.pde.internal.PDETargetPlatform
Running Platform : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target One : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target One : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target One : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target One : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target Two : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
* Target Two : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target Two : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
Target One : win32,win32,x86/de_DE
|
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Target Platform and buckminster-headless: update, multiple with same name, rmtarget [message #518039 is a reply to message #518032] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 15:24   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Thomas!
Thomas Hallgren wrote on Tue, 02 March 2010 21:09 | The rmap is all about finding things. It doesn't say anything about where things end up. Some things might resolve to
the workspace, others to the target platform. You control where things end up using the mspec.
|
OK, that's what I maybe thought you were getting at.
So will it work just as well if I let it materialize as binary imported projects to the workspace? What do I gain from materializing to the (empty) directory appointed by my target definition instead?
How will it actually work, if I let it materialize to the (empty) directory appointed by my target definition? As far as I understand, using importtargetdefinition, will load the target platform and if it's empty at that point, will it work when the materialization later moves plugins to it?
Thanks.
/John
|
|
|
Re: Target Platform and buckminster-headless: update, multiple with same name, rmtarget [message #518051 is a reply to message #518039] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 16:06   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
On 03/02/2010 09:24 PM, John wrote:
> So will it work just as well if I let it materialize as binary imported
> projects to the workspace? What do I gain from materializing to the
> (empty) directory appointed by my target definition instead?
>
In order to get things into your workspace, a jar must first be wrapped in a project. That means that the importer must
generate a .project file and a .classpath. It must also extract the manifest and play some tricks with it. You can see
this if you view an imported binary project using the "Navigator" view instead of the package explorer.
If you import things into a target platform, none of that happens. p2 is used as the provisioning mechanism which means
that updates works a lot better then when you have imported projects.
> How will it actually work, if I let it materialize to the (empty)
> directory appointed by my target definition? As far as I understand,
> using importtargetdefinition, will load the target platform and if it's
> empty at that point, will it work when the materialization later moves
> plugins to it?
>
Yes it will work. The materializer (p2 in this case) will update the target platform with the new artifacts and tell PDE
to reload it.
- thomas
|
|
|
Re: Target Platform and buckminster-headless: update, multiple with same name, rmtarget [message #518054 is a reply to message #518039] |
Tue, 02 March 2010 16:29  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi John,
The big advantage of materializing the target platform into a separate
directory IMHO is that you can keep it after the build execution and re-use
the already downloaded artifacts in the next build. Your platform tends to
be pretty stable, while your source code changes frequently. So there's no
need to download several MB worth of target platform bundles every time you
perform a build. => Keep the target platform, but use a new workspace and
source code to avoid left-overs from the last build. This significantly
speeds up your integration build.
To clarify that: *Do* import the target platform in each build run, but re-
use the TP directory every time you do that. Buckminster will check if it
finds better (i.e. newer) versions of the bundles you require. If there are
none, i.e. if your platform is up-to-date, it doesn't download anything.
Cheers,
Achim
John wrote:
> Hi Thomas!
>
> Thomas Hallgren wrote on Tue, 02 March 2010 21:09
>> The rmap is all about finding things. It doesn't say anything about where
>> things end up. Some things might resolve to the workspace, others to the
>> target platform. You control where things end up using the mspec.
>
>
> OK, that's what I maybe thought you were getting at.
>
> So will it work just as well if I let it materialize as binary imported
> projects to the workspace? What do I gain from materializing to the
> (empty) directory appointed by my target definition instead?
>
> How will it actually work, if I let it materialize to the (empty)
> directory appointed by my target definition? As far as I understand, using
> importtargetdefinition, will load the target platform and if it's empty at
> that point, will it work when the materialization later moves plugins to
> it?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> /John
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 11 23:36:08 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03549 seconds
|