Home » Modeling » EMF » [CDO] CDO4 simultaneous release plans(querying information about roadmap of CDO4)
| [CDO] CDO4 simultaneous release plans [message #652938] |
Mon, 07 February 2011 17:00  |
 Frieder Jacobi
Messages: 5
Registered: February 2010 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi everyone,
we're developing an RCP app with a CDO repository as data storage unit. We need branching, versioning and a neat UI.
At the moment, there appeared some issues with the CDO project nature (in the common navigator) and branching, which are half bugs and half feature requests. With the background of the simultaneous release, I have the following questions:
1) What UI component do you propose for CDO's integration into an RCP app: CDOExplorer (which we did not try yet, since its wiki site got last updated in 2008) or the CDO project nature (which seems more promising, esp. with regard to its integration into the common navigator)?
2) When playing with the CDO project nature, it became obvious that ATM there exist some bugs (some of which we already patched, e.g. changing the project's branch should result in the resource node's children being at the chosen branch's revision). Nice to have would be: Drag&Drop support, integration in the EFS (making Node extends IResource). What functionality exactly is planned for the simultaneous release?
3) When playing with the branching mechanism, there also seem to exist some bugs, e.g.:
- renaming of resources in a branch results in a renamed resource in the MAIN branch, leaving the branch's resource's name untouched;
- copying a resource from one branch A into another branch B (in which this resource does not yet "exist") is impossible: 1) the attempt to open the resource in B with the intent of copying objects into it results in a "resource does not exist", while 2) the attemt to create the resource in B results in a "resource name already in use".
- there are some minor issues concerning the integration of branching and the CDO project nature, too.
In how far is there a chance for those issues of being addressed in this summer's release?
The motive of this posting is not to blame anyone on this bugs, but rather the question in how far those issues will possibly be resolved in the scope of the eclipse simultaneous release in 2011.
Best regards,
Frieder Jacobi
|
|
|
| Re: [CDO] CDO4 simultaneous release plans [message #653036 is a reply to message #652938] |
Tue, 08 February 2011 07:16  |
|
Hi Frieder,
Thanky ou for your interest in CDO. Comments below...
Am 07.02.2011 18:01, schrieb Frieder Jacobi:
> Hi everyone,
>
> we're developing an RCP app with a CDO repository as data storage unit. We need branching, versioning and a neat UI.
>
> At the moment, there appeared some issues with the CDO project nature (in the common navigator) and branching, which are half bugs and half feature requests. With the background of the simultaneous release, I have the following questions:
>
> 1) What UI component do you propose for CDO's integration into an RCP app: CDOExplorer (which we did not try yet, since its wiki site got last updated in 2008) or the CDO project nature (which seems more promising, esp. with regard to its integration into the common navigator)?
Unfortunately our former UI responsible has been assigned other CDO areas of interest by his employer, so the UI components of CDO are not as productively maintained as I would wish. Personally I would love to provide an even smarter UI but my own resources are somewhat limited because I mostly focus on the core functionality and backend integration where my customers tend to be more active in funding the evolution. If you want to contribute to the UI or are considering some sort of sponsoring I would appreciate if you contacted me directly. Then we could discuss the options.
The CDOExplorer effort got stuck in its prototyping phase, partly due to the announcement of the EMF Client Platform (ECP). The CDO project nature (team integration) is IMHO not targeting RCP applications as, from my understanding, these usually lack resources support (i.e. a workspace).
Most users seem to prefer development or adaption of their own UIs, possibly by reusing some of CDO's UI components. Some of my own customers have successfully employed and customized components like the CDOSessionsView.
> 2) When playing with the CDO project nature, it became obvious that ATM there exist some bugs (some of which we already patched, e.g. changing the project's branch should result in the resource node's children being at the chosen branch's revision).
That may be related to:
336448: Switching branch in CDOSessionView does not work
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=336448
If you think it's different please submit a new bugzilla and I'll look into it.
> Nice to have would be: Drag&Drop support,
Sounds like we need you to submit a bugzilla, explicitely describing where you need what functionality.
> integration in the EFS (making Node extends IResource). What functionality exactly is planned for the simultaneous release?
We tried to integrate with EFS, see the org.eclipse.emf.cdo.efs plugin. But it turned out that the fine grained object management of CDO (lazy loading and unloading of single objects) is not particularly well-suited for being integrated with EFS. Our current EFS focus is on top of the new offline CDOWorkspace functionality (CVS/SVN-like workflows with resources dependency). You may want to have a look at these plugins:
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.workspace
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.workspace.efs
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.ui.workspace
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.location
org.eclipse.emf.cdo.ui.location
>
> 3) When playing with the branching mechanism, there also seem to exist some bugs, e.g.:
> - renaming of resources in a branch results in a renamed resource in the MAIN branch, leaving the branch's resource's name untouched;
Is that the same issue you reported above? If not, please submit a separate bugzilla.
> - copying a resource from one branch A into another branch B (in which this resource does not yet "exist") is impossible: 1) the attempt to open the resource in B with the intent of copying objects into it results in a "resource does not exist", while 2) the attemt to create the resource in B results in a "resource name already in use".
By "copying" you mean "merging"? Or are you really talking about EcoreUtil.copy()? Have you already taken a look at our tests? It's comparingly easy to focus on end-to-end behaviour testing there. Here an example from BranchingTest:
public void testContainment() throws Exception
{
CDOSession session = openSession();
CDOBranchManager branchManager = session.getBranchManager();
CDOBranch mainBranch = branchManager.getMainBranch();
CDOBranch testing1 = mainBranch.createBranch("testing1");
CDOBranch subsub1 = testing1.createBranch("subsub1");
CDOBranch testing2 = mainBranch.createBranch("testing2");
CDOBranch subsub2 = testing2.createBranch("subsub2");
session.close();
session = openSession();
branchManager = session.getBranchManager();
mainBranch = branchManager.getMainBranch();
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(mainBranch.getBase(), mainBranch.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(mainBranch.getBase(), testing1.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(mainBranch.getBase(), subsub1.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(mainBranch.getBase(), testing2.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(mainBranch.getBase(), subsub2.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(testing1.getBase(), testing1.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(subsub1.getBase(), subsub1.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(testing2.getBase(), testing2.getHead()));
assertEquals(true, CDOBranchUtil.isContainedBy(subsub2.getBase(), subsub2.getHead()));
session.close();
}
Only bugzillas with attached patches get fixed quicker than bugzillas with attached test cases :P
> - there are some minor issues concerning the integration of branching and the CDO project nature, too. In how far is there a chance for those issues of being addressed in this summer's release?
Issues in the core are always addressed with priority. The CDO project nature has no high priority, unless we arrange for chaning these priorities.
>
> The motive of this posting is not to blame anyone on this bugs,
No worries, we always consider issue reports as important contributions!
> but rather the question in how far those issues will possibly be resolved in the scope of the eclipse simultaneous release in 2011.
See, the CDO project is, as opposed to some other Eclipse projects, not controlled by a single company. I usually have around 10 active committers, partly individuals, partly employees of user companies. In neither case can I dictate them priorities or plans. All work is basically voluntary or according to those companies' priorities. Of course it's in our general interest to address as many issues as possible for the coming release. Please contact me directly if you want to discuss ways to influence priorities ;-)
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 23 13:26:09 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04717 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
