Home » Archived » IAM (Eclipse Integration for Apache Maven) » Wider scope for IAM?
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #3458 is a reply to message #3421] |
Thu, 29 November 2007 23:58   |
|
Hi Abel,
Maven is also integrating with Buckminster. Our objective is to provide the wider scope to the
Eclipse community. In addition to Maven, Buckminster also supports other types of repositories
(Eclipse update sites, Orbit, etc.) and it is not limited to a particular language or build environment.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Project Lead, Buckminster
Abel Muiño wrote:
> Lately, we've been receiving requests in the q4e lists for supporting
> plug-ins and languages other than Java and the JDT. The list includes
> Erlang and Scala (and, of course, WTP).
>
> I think that IAM proposal should reflect that wider scope.
>
> My suggestion is to add a new bullet under Scope:
> * Provide open extension points for supporting integration of
> additional development plug-ins beyond JDT.
>
> Note that implementing the support for every possible plug-in and
> language is not in the scope of IAM (even when some exemplary work
> should be provided).
>
|
|
| |
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #3523 is a reply to message #3490] |
Fri, 30 November 2007 07:20 |
|
Abel Muiño wrote:
> Hello Thomas!
>
> I don't know Buckminster as much as I would, but I think we are talking
> about different "wider scopes".
> One of the feature q4e/IAM provides is creating new Eclipse projects
> using maven archetypes. Usually, an archetype is a Java project, but
> archetypes exist for other languages (like Erlang or Scala).
>
> The idea is that IAM will provide extension points for customizing these
> projects, based on the pom.xml contents.
>
> For example, if the packaging element is "war", then the project will be
> configured as a WTP faceted project.
>
> I don't know if this functionality overlaps with Buckminster goals, so
> any examples or further information would be very welcome.
>
> I hope we can discover synergies between IAM and Buckminster that will
> help in pushing both projects forward.
>
What you describe is well within the scope for Buckminster but you're right. There is a difference.
Maven is pom.xml centric and generates (configures) meta-data based on what's in the pom.xml
Buckminster is meta-data agnostic. We recognize the pom.xml but we also recognize other types of
meta-data that describes the component (OSGi manifests, feature.xml, etc) from which we extract
dependency information and build behavior into a generic read-only meta-data view that we then use.
We don't generate meta-data artifacts.
Both approaches has benefits and I'd love to see a good fit between them.
The first step in the integration has been present since Buckminster was born. It simply enables
Buckminster to "understand" the structure of the maven repositories and the maven pom.xml. With some
luck, that integration will soon be based on the Maven embedder. I think the next step should be to
enable Buckminster actions to call on Maven goals and in the other direction, provide a Maven
plug-in that calls on Buckminster actions.
At some point I think the two projects should meet face to face to discuss and make plans. Perhaps
in conjunction to some other event.
- thomas
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #3716 is a reply to message #3523] |
Fri, 14 December 2007 01:13 |
 Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
It would be great being able to meet face to face. While we find the
time for that, I would like to discuss IAM's scope a little further.
I've been reading the introductory documentation about Buckminster from
the wiki.
What I've understood (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that
Buckminster is able to materialize a published configuration in the local
workspace (I'm probably simplifying quite a bit here).
I don't think that creating a project from an archetype really overlaps
here, as you're not materializing the archetype. The archetype is a
template which is modified to adapt to your current project (i.e. the
project name, the java package names and several fields in the pom are
modified) according to user input.
Maybe Buckminster can do this kind of "instantiations", customizing an
existing component (the archetype) during the materialization process and
I just haven't realized.
What I find quite similar is the process of setting up of the buildpath
for a IAM/java project, since IAM needs to download the dependencies
("materialize" them).
What do you think? Do you see other possible overlaps between the two
projects?
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>> Hello Thomas!
>>
>> I don't know Buckminster as much as I would, but I think we are talking
>> about different "wider scopes".
>> One of the feature q4e/IAM provides is creating new Eclipse projects
>> using maven archetypes. Usually, an archetype is a Java project, but
>> archetypes exist for other languages (like Erlang or Scala).
>>
>> The idea is that IAM will provide extension points for customizing these
>> projects, based on the pom.xml contents.
>>
>> For example, if the packaging element is "war", then the project will be
>> configured as a WTP faceted project.
>>
>> I don't know if this functionality overlaps with Buckminster goals, so
>> any examples or further information would be very welcome.
>>
>> I hope we can discover synergies between IAM and Buckminster that will
>> help in pushing both projects forward.
>>
> What you describe is well within the scope for Buckminster but you're right.
There is a difference.
> Maven is pom.xml centric and generates (configures) meta-data based on
what's in the pom.xml
> Buckminster is meta-data agnostic. We recognize the pom.xml but we also
recognize other types of
> meta-data that describes the component (OSGi manifests, feature.xml, etc)
from which we extract
> dependency information and build behavior into a generic read-only meta-data
view that we then use.
> We don't generate meta-data artifacts.
> Both approaches has benefits and I'd love to see a good fit between them.
> The first step in the integration has been present since Buckminster was
born. It simply enables
> Buckminster to "understand" the structure of the maven repositories and the
maven pom.xml. With some
> luck, that integration will soon be based on the Maven embedder. I think the
next step should be to
> enable Buckminster actions to call on Maven goals and in the other
direction, provide a Maven
> plug-in that calls on Buckminster actions.
> At some point I think the two projects should meet face to face to discuss
and make plans. Perhaps
> in conjunction to some other event.
> - thomas
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #4048 is a reply to message #3716] |
Sun, 16 December 2007 14:01 |
|
Abel Muiño wrote:
> It would be great being able to meet face to face. While we find the
> time for that, I would like to discuss IAM's scope a little further.
>
I guess some of you will be at EclipseCon in March. Perhaps we can set some time aside then?
> ... Maybe Buckminster can do this kind of "instantiations", customizing an
> existing component (the archetype) during the materialization process
> and I just haven't realized.
>
It can, and this would be one of the touch-points between Buckminster and Maven that I would like to
exploit. Buckminster performs materialization and then it executes "install" jobs. A simple form of
install job is something that binds a downloaded artifact (a folder) as a project in a workspace or
copies/links a downloaded jar into an OSGi bundle for later inclusion in the bundle export. A
variant could be to delegate to a Maven goal so that Maven creates needed artifacts from the pom.xml
of the project (and user input etc.).
> What I find quite similar is the process of setting up of the buildpath
> for a IAM/java project, since IAM needs to download the dependencies
> ("materialize" them).
>
> What do you think? Do you see other possible overlaps between the two
> projects?
>
There's bound to be overlaps given all that's in Maven today. I'm not so much concerned about that.
What I really want to achieve is a solution where Buckminster can make use of as much of Mavens
functionality as possible.
- thomas
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #4610 is a reply to message #3421] |
Sat, 23 February 2008 23:55 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: erkki.lap.ee
Abel Muiño wrote:
> Lately, we've been receiving requests in the q4e lists for supporting
> plug-ins and languages other than Java and the JDT. The list includes
> Erlang and Scala (and, of course, WTP).
>
> I think that IAM proposal should reflect that wider scope.
>
> My suggestion is to add a new bullet under Scope:
> * Provide open extension points for supporting integration of
> additional development plug-ins beyond JDT.
>
Good idea! IMHO the minimal thing you can do is making it easy (by
extension points) for others to do the integration with other project
types that you don't want to add to the scope of the IAM project.
Erkki Lindpere
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #564558 is a reply to message #3421] |
Thu, 29 November 2007 23:58 |
|
Hi Abel,
Maven is also integrating with Buckminster. Our objective is to provide the wider scope to the
Eclipse community. In addition to Maven, Buckminster also supports other types of repositories
(Eclipse update sites, Orbit, etc.) and it is not limited to a particular language or build environment.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
Project Lead, Buckminster
Abel Muiño wrote:
> Lately, we've been receiving requests in the q4e lists for supporting
> plug-ins and languages other than Java and the JDT. The list includes
> Erlang and Scala (and, of course, WTP).
>
> I think that IAM proposal should reflect that wider scope.
>
> My suggestion is to add a new bullet under Scope:
> * Provide open extension points for supporting integration of
> additional development plug-ins beyond JDT.
>
> Note that implementing the support for every possible plug-in and
> language is not in the scope of IAM (even when some exemplary work
> should be provided).
>
|
|
| |
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #564592 is a reply to message #3490] |
Fri, 30 November 2007 07:20 |
|
Abel Muiño wrote:
> Hello Thomas!
>
> I don't know Buckminster as much as I would, but I think we are talking
> about different "wider scopes".
> One of the feature q4e/IAM provides is creating new Eclipse projects
> using maven archetypes. Usually, an archetype is a Java project, but
> archetypes exist for other languages (like Erlang or Scala).
>
> The idea is that IAM will provide extension points for customizing these
> projects, based on the pom.xml contents.
>
> For example, if the packaging element is "war", then the project will be
> configured as a WTP faceted project.
>
> I don't know if this functionality overlaps with Buckminster goals, so
> any examples or further information would be very welcome.
>
> I hope we can discover synergies between IAM and Buckminster that will
> help in pushing both projects forward.
>
What you describe is well within the scope for Buckminster but you're right. There is a difference.
Maven is pom.xml centric and generates (configures) meta-data based on what's in the pom.xml
Buckminster is meta-data agnostic. We recognize the pom.xml but we also recognize other types of
meta-data that describes the component (OSGi manifests, feature.xml, etc) from which we extract
dependency information and build behavior into a generic read-only meta-data view that we then use.
We don't generate meta-data artifacts.
Both approaches has benefits and I'd love to see a good fit between them.
The first step in the integration has been present since Buckminster was born. It simply enables
Buckminster to "understand" the structure of the maven repositories and the maven pom.xml. With some
luck, that integration will soon be based on the Maven embedder. I think the next step should be to
enable Buckminster actions to call on Maven goals and in the other direction, provide a Maven
plug-in that calls on Buckminster actions.
At some point I think the two projects should meet face to face to discuss and make plans. Perhaps
in conjunction to some other event.
- thomas
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #564726 is a reply to message #3523] |
Fri, 14 December 2007 01:13 |
Abel Mui
Messages: 247
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Thomas,
It would be great being able to meet face to face. While we find the
time for that, I would like to discuss IAM's scope a little further.
I've been reading the introductory documentation about Buckminster from
the wiki.
What I've understood (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that
Buckminster is able to materialize a published configuration in the local
workspace (I'm probably simplifying quite a bit here).
I don't think that creating a project from an archetype really overlaps
here, as you're not materializing the archetype. The archetype is a
template which is modified to adapt to your current project (i.e. the
project name, the java package names and several fields in the pom are
modified) according to user input.
Maybe Buckminster can do this kind of "instantiations", customizing an
existing component (the archetype) during the materialization process and
I just haven't realized.
What I find quite similar is the process of setting up of the buildpath
for a IAM/java project, since IAM needs to download the dependencies
("materialize" them).
What do you think? Do you see other possible overlaps between the two
projects?
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Abel Muiño wrote:
>> Hello Thomas!
>>
>> I don't know Buckminster as much as I would, but I think we are talking
>> about different "wider scopes".
>> One of the feature q4e/IAM provides is creating new Eclipse projects
>> using maven archetypes. Usually, an archetype is a Java project, but
>> archetypes exist for other languages (like Erlang or Scala).
>>
>> The idea is that IAM will provide extension points for customizing these
>> projects, based on the pom.xml contents.
>>
>> For example, if the packaging element is "war", then the project will be
>> configured as a WTP faceted project.
>>
>> I don't know if this functionality overlaps with Buckminster goals, so
>> any examples or further information would be very welcome.
>>
>> I hope we can discover synergies between IAM and Buckminster that will
>> help in pushing both projects forward.
>>
> What you describe is well within the scope for Buckminster but you're right.
There is a difference.
> Maven is pom.xml centric and generates (configures) meta-data based on
what's in the pom.xml
> Buckminster is meta-data agnostic. We recognize the pom.xml but we also
recognize other types of
> meta-data that describes the component (OSGi manifests, feature.xml, etc)
from which we extract
> dependency information and build behavior into a generic read-only meta-data
view that we then use.
> We don't generate meta-data artifacts.
> Both approaches has benefits and I'd love to see a good fit between them.
> The first step in the integration has been present since Buckminster was
born. It simply enables
> Buckminster to "understand" the structure of the maven repositories and the
maven pom.xml. With some
> luck, that integration will soon be based on the Maven embedder. I think the
next step should be to
> enable Buckminster actions to call on Maven goals and in the other
direction, provide a Maven
> plug-in that calls on Buckminster actions.
> At some point I think the two projects should meet face to face to discuss
and make plans. Perhaps
> in conjunction to some other event.
> - thomas
|
|
|
| Re: Wider scope for IAM? [message #564748 is a reply to message #3716] |
Sun, 16 December 2007 14:01 |
|
Abel Muiño wrote:
> It would be great being able to meet face to face. While we find the
> time for that, I would like to discuss IAM's scope a little further.
>
I guess some of you will be at EclipseCon in March. Perhaps we can set some time aside then?
> ... Maybe Buckminster can do this kind of "instantiations", customizing an
> existing component (the archetype) during the materialization process
> and I just haven't realized.
>
It can, and this would be one of the touch-points between Buckminster and Maven that I would like to
exploit. Buckminster performs materialization and then it executes "install" jobs. A simple form of
install job is something that binds a downloaded artifact (a folder) as a project in a workspace or
copies/links a downloaded jar into an OSGi bundle for later inclusion in the bundle export. A
variant could be to delegate to a Maven goal so that Maven creates needed artifacts from the pom.xml
of the project (and user input etc.).
> What I find quite similar is the process of setting up of the buildpath
> for a IAM/java project, since IAM needs to download the dependencies
> ("materialize" them).
>
> What do you think? Do you see other possible overlaps between the two
> projects?
>
There's bound to be overlaps given all that's in Maven today. I'm not so much concerned about that.
What I really want to achieve is a solution where Buckminster can make use of as much of Mavens
functionality as possible.
- thomas
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 23 13:43:49 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04982 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
