Home » Modeling » EMF » Turn of generatation of PDE artifacts?
| | |
| Re: Turn of generatation of PDE artifacts? [message #656304 is a reply to message #656293] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 00:06   |
 Ed Merks
Messages: 33137
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
Comments below.
Neil Bartlett wrote:
> On 24/02/2011 00:08, Ed Merks wrote:
>> Personally I much prefer to let PDE manage my classpath rather than
>> doing it manually...
>
> Well, I agree that using a tool to manage dependencies is better than
> doing it yourself. But I prefer other tools than PDE. It's just wrong
> to assume that all EMF users are also PDE users.
Given we're generating into the Eclipse workspace and PDE is always
there, it's a pretty darned good assumption for most users (except the
really fussy ones who feel compelled to manage classpaths manually).
You can imagine how much work it gets to be to maintain a zillion
different options/settings/configurations/combinations...
>
>> There are options like Bundle Manifest and Update Classpath you can
>> fiddle with if you want to manage more of that yourself.
>
> Okay I hadn't found the "Update Classpath" option. That helps, thanks.
>
> Turning off Bundle Manifest removes META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and instead
> generates old Eclipse 1.x/2.x-style plugin.xml. Oh well not so bad, I
> can just delete that.
>
> My remaining problem is that EMF overwrites build.properties. I had
> some settings in there that were lost... oh well I can choose a
> different name for my own build stuff I guess.
I suspect it generates that only when there is no MANIFEST.MF...
>
> I seem to be saying "oh well" a lot when using EMF!
It seems to me that most every jar ought to have a MANIFEST.MF, right?
EMF will generate one, but it will not touch it once it exists. So you
could put whatever you want in it. As for other artifacts, you can just
let them be and not include them in your binary results if ultimately
you don't want them.
> It's so nice in some ways... so annoying in others.
Unfortunately there's very little time to polish the gem...
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
>>>
>>> When I generate using the command line generator application it
>>> doesn't alter .classpath and .project, which is much better but still
>>> fairly annoying.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Neil
>
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Turn of generatation of PDE artifacts? [message #656309 is a reply to message #656304] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 01:09 |
Neil Bartlett
Messages: 93
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Ed,
Comments below.
On 25/02/2011 00:06, Ed Merks wrote:
> Given we're generating into the Eclipse workspace and PDE is always
> there, it's a pretty darned good assumption for most users (except the
> really fussy ones who feel compelled to manage classpaths manually).
PDE is certainly not always there. Take a look at the download figures
for "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers" (2.3 million) and "Eclipse for
Java EE Developers" (1.6 million) versus "Eclipse Classic" (500,000).
The non-PDE installs outweigh PDE by nearly 8 times.
Please note that I do not manage classpaths manually. I use a tool as
well, but that tool is not PDE.
> You
> can imagine how much work it gets to be to maintain a zillion different
> options/settings/configurations/combinations...
Well there is an option to disable "Update Classpath". Why not to
disable generation of all PDE-specific artifacts? I don't believe I'm
asking for something complicated, I *JUST* want the code.
> It seems to me that most every jar ought to have a MANIFEST.MF, right?
Oh yes, of course all my JARs have manifests, but my *projects* don't! I
also don't need EMF's help to generate MANIFEST.MF because frankly what
you generate is junk... full of Require-Bundle, depends on large chunks
of Eclipse... yikes.
Still, at least the other outputs are ignorable. Updating .classpath and
..project was most obnoxious problem, so I'm happy that you've shown me a
way to turn that off.
Cheers,
Neil
|
|
|
| Re: Turn of generatation of PDE artifacts? [message #656312 is a reply to message #656309] |
Fri, 25 February 2011 01:56 |
Ed Merks
Messages: 33137
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil,
Comments below.
Neil Bartlett wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> Comments below.
>
> On 25/02/2011 00:06, Ed Merks wrote:
>> Given we're generating into the Eclipse workspace and PDE is always
>> there, it's a pretty darned good assumption for most users (except the
>> really fussy ones who feel compelled to manage classpaths manually).
>
> PDE is certainly not always there. Take a look at the download figures
> for "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers" (2.3 million) and "Eclipse for
> Java EE Developers" (1.6 million) versus "Eclipse Classic" (500,000).
> The non-PDE installs outweigh PDE by nearly 8 times.
According to http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/compare.php EE has PDE...
>
> Please note that I do not manage classpaths manually. I use a tool as
> well, but that tool is not PDE.
>
> > You
>> can imagine how much work it gets to be to maintain a zillion different
>> options/settings/configurations/combinations...
>
> Well there is an option to disable "Update Classpath". Why not to
> disable generation of all PDE-specific artifacts?
The stuff we generate wouldn't even compile. No one asked before you.
There are 100 other feature requests that seem more useful.
> I don't believe I'm asking for something complicated, I *JUST* want
> the code.
No, it's just one little cut. But100 people asking for 100 more options
really do complicate things. Death by a thousand cuts...
>
>> It seems to me that most every jar ought to have a MANIFEST.MF, right?
>
> Oh yes, of course all my JARs have manifests, but my *projects* don't!
They're generated somehow?
> I also don't need EMF's help to generate MANIFEST.MF because frankly
> what you generate is junk...
One man's useful artifact is another man's junk.
> full of Require-Bundle, depends on large chunks of Eclipse... yikes.
>
> Still, at least the other outputs are ignorable.
Rose colored glasses can accomplish quite a bit to make life rosey.
> Updating .classpath and .project was most obnoxious problem, so I'm
> happy that you've shown me a way to turn that off.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 03:06:26 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03156 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
